QUESTION: Is There Any Evidence That Letting the AWB Expire...

[CO Liberal]

will make us any SAFER????? :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

1. Of course not...

But it will sure be a bonanza for some of the scummiest people on earth....

[DoNotRefill]

142. bonanza? How do you figure?

all those people who paid big bucks for "pre-ban" guns (generally at least double what they're worth) are gonna be out a boatload of cash.

It will not affect the gun manufacturers at all.

[Abe Linkman]

2. What is "AWB", and why do people use acronyms of UNcommon things?

.

[MrBenchley]

3. The Assault Weapons Ban...

It's common usage down here in the gungeon...where some people are pretending that keeping military style weapons out of the hands of thugs, whackos and potential terrorists is an injustice akin to Jim Crow.

[goju]

5. Pardon the rhetoric

Not everyone who owns a shotgun with a pistol grip are "thugs, whackos and potential terrorists".

[MrBenchley]

10. Ah, where would the RKBA cause be without open dishonesty?

Answer: Nowhere.

Of course, ALL that the AWB covers is pistol grips on shotguns....and Ted Nugent is the Queen of the Sugar Plum Faeries....

[goju]

26. So one must own all those proscribed weapons to fit

your definition then?

[MrBenchley]

41. A-and what does the bill say, do you suppose?

[library_max]

73. But probably some of them are, or would be without the AWB. /nt

[Bowline]

8. Others believe the ban was ill conceived and did nothing to curb crime.

We also believe that it does nothing to keep criminals from getting dangerous weapons but DOES infringe on our inalienable right to keep and bear arms for self defense and other lawful pursuits.

[MrBenchley]

11. Yeah, it's a view shared by the Aryan Nation and David Duke

You'll notice even most of the Republicans blocking the ban's renewal are reluctant to say something that silly in punlic out loud.

[EconGeek]

132. What?

I've heard many a republican say that the bill was ill conceieved, and I've seen them provide lots of statistics, etc, saying that it has had no effect on crime.

"assault weapons" as defined in the bill, are the least likely firearms to be used in violent crime... mainly because if the criminal could afford one, they wouldn't need to do the crime! They could just sell it for the money....

[MrBenchley]

134. Yeah? That's swell....

"I've heard many a republican say that the bill was ill conceieved"
Boy, and when do Republicans ever lie, eh?

[-..__...]

13. AWB =....

[goju]

4. Is that a requirement for sunsetting useless laws?

The burden of proof is on those who support the AWB. Not the other way around.

[slackmaster]

6. Absolutely none

Nor is there any evidence that the expiration will make us less safe.

No harm, no foul.

[Bowline]

7. I think there is little evidence to support either side of the argument.

I believe that this will quickly fade into a non-issue on September 14th.

[CO Liberal]

14. And When More Shooting Take Place....

...because the ban was lifted, the only thing that will be fading will be blood stains.

[OpSomBlood]

15. Has the AWB reduced the number of shootings?

Again, present some inkling of statistical evidence that shows the ban worked. Anything.

[Bowline]

16. Only if the facts tie the shootings to the lifting of the AWB.

Otherwise they are merely more tragic shootings.

[Jack_DeLeon]

39. Dont get yourself too happy over that prospect...

Yes I understand you want to use someone else's tradgedy to prove your point, however you would also have to prove that the shooting would not happen at all if the AWB were in place.

IMO the weapon used is irrelevent. So what if there is a shooting done with a semiauto rifle that has a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, and collapsable stock. It could just have easily happened using a rifle without those features if the AWB were still in place.

[Retired AF Dem]

124. Why would more shootings take place?

since the ban was about parts of a rifle and not the rifle itself?

[DoNotRefill]

143. Co, read what Josh Sugarmann from VPC said about the AW ban....

he says it was totally useless in preventing crime.

If you don't believe the people on YOUR side of the argument, who ARE you going to believe?

[Crachet2004]

147. I hope you are right, and I believe you are...

Then we can just sort of leave it out of the Platform, from here on out.

[FatSlob]

9. You've got the wrong question.

COLib, if the government is going to restrict freedoms, the onus should be on them to prove that the restriction will make us safer.

[OpSomBlood]

12. I'd like conclusive evidence that the AWB made us safer.

I agree with FatSlob...you can't take freedoms away and justify it by saying that giving them back won't make you safer. You have to justify taking the freedom away to begin with.

The AWB didn't prevent Columbine. It didn't prevent the D.C. Snipers. Show me something, anything that demonstrably proves that banning the manufacture of semi-auto rifles with folding stocks (while keeping their exact equivalent with fixed stocks and handguns legal) has made our society safer.

The onus is on the pro-AWB people because they are the ones who want to restrict the freedom to own such weapons.

[MrBenchley]

17. You've gotten it several times and bitched about it...

[FatSlob]

25. Hello? Anybody there?

[iverglas]

29. well, I'll give you, too, my favourite reply

COLib, if the government is going to restrict freedoms, the onus should be on them to prove that the restriction will make us safer.

The issue was registration (or "gun control" in general); feel free to substitute "assault weapons ban".

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

The speed limit that *I* am required to obey sure doesn't make anybody any safer. I'm safe at *every* speed. Ditto for jaywalking; I'm a safe jaywalker, and yet jaywalking is still illegal for me to do. And if I were ticketed for speeding or jaywalking where no one had suffered any harm, this would just be enforcement of a bloody PRIOR RESTRAINT on my liberty. *My* freedom is restricted for no fucking purpose at all, and I am liable to punishment for doing no harm.

But it's a little hard to argue that requiring some other people to obey speed limits who might otherwise speed -- on the old assumption that prohibiting something and punishing people who do it will deter at least some people from doing it -- doesn't make a lot of people safer.

And it just seems damned hard, to me, to argue that preventing some people from owning certain firearms who might otherwise own them, if there were no law prohibiting the sale of them, isn't making some other people safer.

And at no more cost worth bothering about, to anyone else, than the cost that anti-speeding and anti-jaywalking laws impose on me.

[slackmaster]

34. There's historical evidence that speed limits can save lives

In the USA highway fatalities dropped significantly when the Nixon administration imposed a national 55 MPH limit. Safer vehicles have kept rates from rising much in response to the return to higher speeds.

Where is similar hard data showing a decrease in unlawful shootings attributable to the AWB?

[iverglas]

36. nonononon

There's historical evidence that speed limits can save lives

There's no evidence that limiting MY speed can save any lives at all.


Where is similar hard data showing a decrease in unlawful shootings attributable to the AWB

How could any decrease in unlawful shootings by anything other than banned assault weapons be attributable to the assault weapons ban???

What kind of sophistry is this??

Surely you're not going to say that we saw a reduction in motor vehicle accidents caused by truck wheels flying off, or people driving without headlights, because speed limits were lowered.

And anyhow -- how does showing that reducing speed limits to 55 mph from 60 or 65 mph correlates with fewer accidents prove that there would be more accidents if the 60 or 65 mph limit were removed than there are with that limit?? Maybe you've proved that low speed limits are more effective than high speed limits; have you proved that high speed limits are more effective than no speed limits, or even higher speed limits? I don't think so.

And you still wouldn't have shown justification for the prior restraint on *my* liberty, would you?

[slackmaster]

59. I'm not sure what point you think you're arguing against

How could any decrease in unlawful shootings by anything other than banned assault weapons be attributable to the assault weapons ban???

The whole idea behind the AWB was that it would reduce gun-related crime by reducing the number of people who got shot unlawfully.

That result has not been shown. If the actual result was a wash, in which fewer people were shot by the artificially more costly assault weapons but more were killed with other tools, then the ban had no benefit on public safety.

Surely you're not going to say that we saw a reduction in motor vehicle accidents caused by truck wheels flying off, or people driving without headlights, because speed limits were lowered.

Please don't be trite. The reduction in traffic fatalities in the mid-1970s was attributable to a reduction in the number of high-speed crashes and the speed at which collisions occurred.

And anyhow -- how does showing that reducing speed limits to 55 mph from 60 or 65 mph correlates with fewer accidents prove that there would be more accidents if the 60 or 65 mph limit were removed than there are with that limit??

It doesn't show that, but nobody ever said that it would.

Speed limits vs. "assault weapons" ban = apples vs. oranges.

And you still wouldn't have shown justification for the prior restraint on *my* liberty, would you?

You're way off in the woods on this point, iverglas. I'm talking about overall crime rates, overall accident rates, IOW public safety. Speed limits have been shown to actually save lives. The AW ban has not.

[iverglas]

66. makes no sense

You're way off in the woods on this point, iverglas. I'm talking about overall crime rates, overall accident rates, IOW public safety. Speed limits have been shown to actually save lives. The AW ban has not.

Talk about yr apples and oranges. You're gunning for the week's award, right?

How the hell could a ban on a very particular kind of firearm be expected to have any effect at all on any crime that was not committed by that very particular kind of firearm??

You're doing *exactly* what I would be doing if I said that speed limits did *not* affect accident rates, because accident rates did not rise when speed limits were increased -- when we know (well, at least you said) that accident rates have also decreased because of design improvements, creating an off-set affect that (presumably) has nothing to do with the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of speed limits.

Someone could pretty easily argue that the fact that accident rates did *not* go up when speed limits did proves that lower speed limits don't reduce accident rates, it seems to me.

I have imagined, all along, that the "assault weapons ban" had some pretty specific goals. I mean, if the goal had actually been what you say --

The whole idea behind the AWB was that it would reduce gun-related crime by reducing the number of people who got shot unlawfully.

-- what sort of idiot would have stopped at banning assault weapons?? If you're wanting to "reduce gun-related crime by reducing the number of people who got shot unlawfully", wouldn't you maybe ban GUNS?

(Btw, I can't really make sense of that sentence of yours anyhow. Do you mean that "reducing the number of people who got shot unlawfully" would "reduce gun-related crime" just by definition -- shooting someone is a gun-related crime, therefore if fewer people are shot, there are fewer gun-related crimes? Or are you referring to firearm-facilitated crime: that crimes other than shooting people would be reduced by reducing the number of people who got shot unlawfully? Unlawful shooting and firearm-facilitated crime are really two very different things, although both might be called "gun-related crime".)

It just strikes me that the "ban" on assault weapons must have had a rather more limited goal, and that measuring its success by the extent to which it succeeded/failed to do something that it was not intended to do ... well, where have we heard that before? Does the phrase "UK bloodbath" come to mind?


Speed limits vs. "assault weapons" ban = apples vs. oranges.

Speed limits impose restrictions on a behaviour with the intent of reducing harm that results from that behaviour, i.e. from speeding -- not with the intent of reducing harm that results from vehicle design flaws.

An "assault weapons ban", surely, is a restriction imposed on a behaviour with the intent of reducing harm that results from that behaviour, i.e. from the possession and use of assault weapons -- not with the intent of reducing harm that results from the possession and use of handguns or some other damned thing.

Like you say:

It doesn't show that, but nobody ever said that it would.

Y'see?

It appears to have been thought that a very particular kind of harm is caused by the possession/use of assault weapons that is *not* caused by handguns or whatever.

I think you need to candidly state what *that* harm was, and then present the facts that demonstrate that the measure either did or did not achieve that goal.

[slackmaster]

72. Congratulations on pinpointing the core fallacy of gun bans

How the hell could a ban on a very particular kind of firearm be expected to have any effect at all on any crime that was not committed by that very particular kind of firearm??

You're right - IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!

Notable and qoutable.

:toast:

It appears to have been thought that a very particular kind of harm is caused by the possession/use of assault weapons that is *not* caused by handguns or whatever.

I think you need to candidly state what *that* harm was, and then present the facts that demonstrate that the measure either did or did not achieve that goal.

I really can't explain the reasoning behind it because it makes no sense to me. Perhaps the AW ban was based on an appeal to emotion rather than a realistic effort to enhance public safety.

[iverglas]

85. thank you, thank you very much

How the hell could a ban on a very particular kind of firearm be expected to have any effect at all on any crime that was not committed by that very particular kind of firearm??

You're right - IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!
Notable and qoutable.

Of course, it's actually YOU who is right.

*I* did not say that a ban on one very particular kind of firearm could be expected to have any effect at all on any crime that was not committed by that very particular kind of firearm. I actually said exactly the opposite. *You* were the one relying on apples to prove the non-existence of an orange.

Gettin' it?

Remember how, historically, the homicide-by-handgun rate in Canada is less than 1/15 of the homicide-by-handgun rate in the US?

And how that's true even though Canada's overall firearms homicide rate is 1/8 the overall firearms homicide rate in the US? And the non-firearm homicide rate is a little over 1/2 the non-firearm homicide rate in the US?

Is it worth maybe considering that the lack of access to handguns has resulted in a lower overall homicide rate in Canada than there would have been if there was ready access to handguns?

And is there any reason to believe that the lack of access to "assault weapons" has NOT contributed to a lower overall firearms homicide/crime rate in the US than there would have been without the ban?

No more than there is to believe that lower speed limits did not contribute to lower accident rates, even though the accident rate did not rise when the speed limits were raised.

THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS IN OPERATION. Gettin' it?

Now I doubt that there has been a huge effect from your assault weapons ban -- remember, *I* have never defended the damned thing as anything other than a first step that should not be retracted.

The substitution effect is just too obvious -- there isn't a whole lot that somebody'd be likely to do with an "assault weapon" that s/he wouldn't do with some other firearm. The Canadian experience is clearer -- there are quite a lot of things that people are likely to do with handguns that they are *not* likely to do with shotguns or hunting rifles, in point of fact. Starting with taking them out for an evening of dancing. So we'd *expect* to find a lower overall homicide rate when handguns are not available, if we were being honest and all.

But there are plainly some things that are facilitated by "assault weapons" and are less likely to be undertaken and/or to succeed if another firearm is used. And I'm still waiting for you to be candid about what they are.

[slackmaster]

107. We are so close it's almost unbelievable

But there are plainly some things that are facilitated by "assault weapons" and are less likely to be undertaken and/or to succeed if another firearm is used. And I'm still waiting for you to be candid about what they are.

"Plainly"??? :shrug:

This I do not see. For there to be some things that are facilitated by an AW and less likely to be done with a non-AW there would have to be some kind of fundamental FUNCTIONAL difference between firearms that are AWs and those that are not.

AFAIK the only real functional effect of the AW ban was to reduce the capacity of newly manufactured magazines (millions of larger existing ones notwithstanding), but a large magazine does not define an AW; merely the ability to accept a detachable magazine irrespective of capacity. AWs can accept detachable magazines of any size, but many firearms that are not AWs can accept detachable magazines of any size.

So I really don't accept that there is a class of things, let's call them acts of criminal misuse, that are inherently more prone to be done with an AW than with, say, a hunting rifle that takes detachable magazines.

[FatSlob]

35. Sorry, what happened in Canada is irrelevant to the conversation.

This is about the AWB in the United States, but you knew that.

[iverglas]

38. read carefully, darling boy

I mean, I did boldface and underline it for you, but I'm always willing to help the uncomprehending.

demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

You see, I gave you the context, before, so you could see that the demands in question were for conclusive "proof" of the effectiveness of firearms control measures.

And those demands are usually, well, disingenuous, you see.

[FatSlob]

44. Unfortunately for you, there is NO PROOF.

I'll freely admit to not really bothering to read your missive. You should learn that being concise is a good thing on a message board. Your obnoxious reply does speak volumes about your sense of civility. I'll also add that it is the responsibility of those who with to restrict or remove freedoms to point to the public good. No public good has come of this silly little ban.

I'd say that your implications that requests for evidence are disingenuous, to be disingenuous.

I'll ask you this, dear lady,

Which of the below banned features will cause more crime when it is no longer banned?

1. Adjustable stock
2. Bayonet/bipod lug
3. Flash reducer
4. Threaded barrel

Please try to keep your answer concise, you do tend to be a bit wordy.

[iverglas]

50. what happened to that magazine-capacity thingy?

Look ma. No words.

[FatSlob]

53. Sorry, I forgot about that one, as full cap mags are fairly plentiful.

So, now you have the full list. Which one? I applaud how concise you were last post. Thank you.

[Retired AF Dem]

125. That is not a problem

I just carry more "legal" mags. :)

[FeebMaster]

18. Why would it?

Maybe you should read the AWB.

[EconGeek]

133. "Assault Weapons" are no more lethal or dangerous than other rifles...

I think the people who support the AWB really should read the AWB!

The AWB bans cosmetic and safety features. The rifles that are "post ban" do not have these features... so they are marginally less safe for the owner... but they are not any less lethal when used in a crime.

In fact, the darling of the anti-gun crowd, the AK-47 is banned for hunting in many sttes because its considered cruel to the deer to shoot it with a medium caliber round like that.

Yet the people who support the AWB want it banned because its "dangerous"? (While a .308 lever action is apparently ok, because it doesn't have a pistol grip? Yet the caliber of the round is much more powerful....)

It makes no sense.

[iverglas]

19. and another one

QUESTION: Is There Any Evidence That Letting the AWB Expire...

will GET YOU ANY VOTES????

[slackmaster]

20. OTOOH and OTOOOH

Is there evidence that letting the AWB expire will COST Democrats any votes?

How about Republicans?

[MrBenchley]

21. Well, yes, there is....

which is why there was all that bitching about the polls...

[iverglas]

23. uh

Is there evidence that letting the AWB expire will COST Democrats any votes?
How about Republicans?

In reverse order ...


You mean ... will letting it expire cost Republicans votes? Isn't that about the same as asking whether it will get Democrats votes? And have I heard the answer?

If your question is whether letting it expire will *get* Republicans votes ... well, I guess we need to consider what the likely net result of a bi-partisan let the assault weapons ban expire effort might be. Which again looks like: will it get the Democrats votes?


As far as whether letting it expire would *cost* Democrats votes, I dunno ... I can think of a bunch of things that Democrats could do that wouldn't likely cost them many votes ... but that still wouldn't be nice things to do, or endear them to the people holding their noses and voting for them anyhow.

That just looks to me like a very different question. The kind that Republicans might ask themselves: "how much lousy shit can we get away with without losing votes?"

[goju]

27. Gore, 2000.. ring a bell?

He lost a state or two because of his gun positions and the NRA push in key states. I think thats why we see Kerry wisely avoiding the issue as much as possible.

[iverglas]

31. sure does

It seems to be an unending chorus around here ... from people who think that their saying something makes it true ...

It must be that time again. Here's a couple for you, since you're so new.





http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

[goju]

37. More denial?

Since you are obviously not paying attention....

"Partly as a result of anti-gun control sentiment among rural white men, Gore lost the electoral votes of several states--for example, West Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire--that would have probably gone Democratic and could have given him the election. In my own small town in Western New York, I spoke with union activists who told me that many of their male union buddies voted Republican because of the gun control issue."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_1_61/ai_69202825

[iverglas]

42. well gosh!

Now you have AUTHORITY for your assertion! The opinion of somebody named, lemme see, "Jeffrey S. Victor" ... whom I'd never heard of. I'm impressed!

Impressed enough to give you a *third* prize for the week:



You may read it as being awarded for a generic ex cathedra argument -- an appeal to an authority who just ain't.

[goju]

47. But but... YOU are the authority?

All it would take is a little time on your part to here the same sentiment echoed by everyone, guns are not a winning issue for us as evidenced by 2000 and 2002.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-usmcca223901715jul22,0,6661676.story?coll=ny-prezelection-headlines

http://www.wmsa.net/news/WashingtonTimes/wt_020610_gun_control_fades.htm

http://www.texnews.com/abilene2000/elec/gun0619.html


http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0510/p02s02-uspo.html


Oh, and by the way the article I quoted was from the Humanist. Im assuming youve heard of that?

[iverglas]

54. did I *say* I was?

But but... YOU are the authority?

I don't THINK I said I was. Should I go check?

You wouldn't be trying to make it look like I said something I didn't say, wouldya?

I wasn't the one making an assertion and in need of authority for it, as I recall.


All it would take is a little time on your part to here the same sentiment echoed by everyone ...

My my. That's an awfully unequivocal ... and unsubstantiated ... assertion you've made there.

Now, if I wanted to disprove it, all I'd have to do is come up with *someone* who didn't echo it. Gosh, I wonder. Could I do that?

But wait! --

... guns are not a winning issue for us as evidenced by 2000 and 2002.

You don't seem to be saying that *everyone* said that Gore lost a state or two because of his gun positions and the NRA push in key states. You seem to be saying something quite different: that *everyone* says that guns are not a winning issue for us as evidenced by 2000 and 2002. My goodness, you wouldn't be engaging in a little



ing now, would you??

I do like that Christian Science Monitor article. Now, can you just point out the bit in it that proves that Gore lost because of this issue, or even that *everyone* echoes the sentiment in question, whatever it might be?

Still, some analysts say this overstates the impact. While gun owners may have tipped the scales toward Bush in West Virginia, which usually votes Democratic, Gore might well have lost the more conservative states of Tennessee and Arkansas regardless of his stance. And Gore won Michigan and Pennsylvania – states where the NRA spent heavily, and has high membership.

Oh, and by the way the article I quoted was from the Humanist. Im assuming youve heard of that?

I don't know ... did I say something that suggested to you that I hadn't? Why do you ask?

And maybe you can tell me ... proposing to outlaw abortion would pretty certainly get some o' those pro-lifers to vote Democrat. (And who would all the pro-choicers vote for instead?) Why not do it?

[goju]

63. Its unfortunate

You set yourself up as an authority then back away from it when challenged. By all too obvious ommission, you require that any authority be, someone YOU have heard of. Where do you get that ego? Who cares who you have heard of or not. You can take it for what it is, if the Humanist isnt worthy of your trust, fine. I offered many other articles that echoed my original point. Lessons learned in 2000 and 2002 should not be repeated in 04. Namely, pander as little as needed to the gun control proponents, anything more will COST votes, not gain them. If you want to challenge that strategy, talk to the DNC.

What I said was that Gore lost states in 2000 and because of that, guns are not a winning issue in 2004. Its not hard to follow.

Yes you did say something that warranted the question on your familiarity with Humanist. You mentioned you never heard of the author of that article. Since you put forth an air of intellectual superiority, I thought I had better not assume. Had I assumed, you would be chastizing me for NOT asking, as youve done in the past. Yes, you are that transparant.

You missed the point again. NOT doggedly pursuing gun control is the smart tactic, one that Kerry is following. Seems some here just dont understand why. Example, you comparing apples and oranges.

[iverglas]

79. what's *really* unfortunate

You set yourself up as an authority then back away from it when challenged.

... is that this statement -- every single bit of it -- is false.

By all too obvious ommission, you require that any authority be, someone YOU have heard of.

"Obvious" ... to someone wearing special spectacles, I guess.

I required that the authority BE AN AUTHORITY. That was what was obvious to the naked eye.

Where do you get that ego? Who cares who you have heard of or not.

Well, not me, really. If your source actually had been an authority, I might have been embarrassed not to have heard of him ... but then he wasn't, so I'm cool.

You can take it for what it is, if the Humanist isnt worthy of your trust, fine.

C'mon, get a clue -- or at least admit to having one, eh?

I offered many other articles that echoed my original point.

Yeah -- AND I ASKED YOU to show me what, in one of them, actually constituted authority for the assertion you made -- or even, in the one case, all unauthoritative as it may have been, agreed with your assertion.

I'll be waiting.

Namely, pander as little as needed to the gun control proponents, anything more will COST votes, not gain them. If you want to challenge that strategy, talk to the DNC

And I STILL want to know why this stragety doesn't apply, a fortiori (that's "all the more"), to abortion.

And I'm STILL waiting for answers.

And gosh ... if you think that the DNC is authority, in my mind, for what's a good thing to do ... well, I'd say you haven't been paying attention, but you're still new.

What I said was that Gore lost states in 2000 and because of that, guns are not a winning issue in 2004. Its not hard to follow.

It's easy! Just as easy to follow as when I say "there are faeries in the bottom of my garden, and because of that my flowers grow extra tall". And I'll find you a source that agrees with me, if you like.

Yes you did say something that warranted the question on your familiarity with Humanist. You mentioned you never heard of the author of that article. Since you put forth an air of intellectual superiority, I thought I had better not assume. Had I assumed, you would be chastizing me for NOT asking, as youve done in the past. Yes, you are that transparant.

Ah yes, it's quite a logical assumption that because I've never heard of whatsisname (maybe I have, and just don't recall), I've never heard of The Humanist. I did decline, when solicited, to sign on to the Humanist Manifesto II http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html back in about 1988 ... too Libertarian for me.

Why would you have assumed anything at all about my familiarity with The Humanist or lack thereof, and why do you think that this is relevant to anything??

I pointed out that the author you cited WAS NOT AN AUTHORITY for the statement you made. He could have been published on stone tablets, for all I care: he would STILL NOT BE AN AUTHORITY for the statement you made.

You missed the point again. NOT doggedly pursuing gun control is the smart tactic, one that Kerry is following. Seems some here just dont understand why. Example, you comparing apples and oranges.

Uh ... I don't even know what that last bit is supposed to mean. Or even what it's supposed to be about.

And I have absolutely no doubt that there are people who will claim to have voted against the Democrats because of this issue. I just can't think of any reason to believe them.

You see, this is the question: it might be necessary for the Democrats to be anti-firearms-control in order to get some people's vote ... but WOULD OPPOSING FIREARMS CONTROL BE SUFFICIENT to get their votes?

It's even possible that there are people who truly have voted, and will vote, against the Democrats because of this issue and for no other reason that would have been sufficient for them to vote against the Democrats even if the Ds and Rs had got into a bidding war about how many assault weapons they were going to put into every pot.

And it seems like the people in question, if they really and truly do support the Democratic platform on other things, are either

- really really unpleasant
or
- really pretty dim

So ...

- they're putting their own interests -- whatever interests they might really have in whatever it is that the Democrats really (and not just in an NRA fable) want to do above everyone else's interests in all the other things the Democrats want to do;

or

- they haven't got a clue about where their own interests actually lie, and they've believed a whole lot of fables about what their interests are (the war in Iraq is good for them, tax cuts for the rich are good for them, whatever) and how the Democrats plan to act contrary to them, and firearms control is just one element of the delusion;

or

- they know that the Democrats will act in all their other interests, but they believe, as a result of listening to a bunch of NRA fables, that what the Democrats propose to do in respect of firearms is so much not in their interests that they won't vote for the Democrats anyway.

Now you see, I just don't think that abandoning firearms control is going to be SUFFICIENT to get the first group's votes. You'd have to abandon reproductive rights, and welfare, and medicare, and a bunch of other stuff. Ready to do that?

And I just don't think that abandoning firearms control is NECESSARY to get the other two groups' votes -- because THERE ARE OTHER WAYS of getting their votes.

Like getting out there and explaining how the Democrats' policy agenda is NOT contrary to their interests, even as firearms owners.

And damned if MrBenchley isn't just constantly on the hunt for "pro-gun democrats" doing just that ... and with so little luck.

[goju]

95. You have a knack

for typing alot, and saying little.

About the only thing noteworthy would be your statement:

"I pointed out that the author you cited WAS NOT AN AUTHORITY for the statement you made. He could have been published on stone tablets, for all I care: he would STILL NOT BE AN AUTHORITY for the statement you made."

I think that says it all.


But one other comment intrigues me:

"It's easy! Just as easy to follow as when I say "there are faeries in the bottom of my garden, and because of that my flowers grow extra tall". And I'll find you a source that agrees with me, if you like."

Yes, please. I would like you to provide a source for that claim.


Finally, this one is great:

"And damned if MrBenchley isn't just constantly on the hunt for "pro-gun democrats" doing just that ... and with so little luck."

You wont find what you dont want to see. Its right there in front of you both, but you have to put aside this myopic focus on what it means to be a progressive or gun owner, per your misguided opinion. I guess its easy for you to disregard the concerns of gun owners but can you at least understand that its not so easy for alot of people, especially those on the fence?

As I said, democrats are gun owners too, like it or not. I get the feeling you would just prefer to ignore that fact or try to widdle away at our rights anyway to serve YOUR interests. I am a lifelong Democrat and I vote too. Try to disqualify my opinions all you want, but it wont work.

[iverglas]

118. well jeez, that was easy

It's easy! Just as easy to follow as when I say "there are faeries in the bottom of my garden, and because of that my flowers grow extra tall". And I'll find you a source that agrees with me, if you like.

Yes, please. I would like you to provide a source for that claim.

I ask google for fairies garden make flowers grow, and about 4 down in the list, I get:

http://www.longwoodgardens.org/SeasonalFestivals/2001ChrysFestivalSculptures.htm

Meadow Fairies

These tiny, winged creatures hover unseen amongst the garden flowers. They make flowers grow, change colors, close up at night, and open in the mornings. ...

Here, there is advice on what to grow to feed the fairies:
http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/wtrsow/msg0722365310431.html

Those were a little vague ... I did make a more specific assertion. Aha, here's the ticket:

http://www.laceylady.com/Froud.shtml

Froud Faeries of the Flowers are very common and can be found any place people delight in turning over the soil in their hands, working to make flowers grow. You will find Froud Fairies under briars, or in the quiet shade below the bushes. In the first light of morning they leap from bloom to bloom and where ever their small feet touch the petals, the plants become tall and filled with fragrance.

Now, you may not have heard of my authorities, but I won't hold it against you.


You wont find what you dont want to see. Its right there in front of you both, but you have to put aside this myopic focus on what it means to be a progressive or gun owner, per your misguided opinion. I guess its easy for you to disregard the concerns of gun owners but can you at least understand that its not so easy for alot of people, especially those on the fence?

Can you explain what this conceivably had to do with WHAT I SAID, the last bit of which you actually quoted? --

And I just don't think that abandoning firearms control is NECESSARY to get the other two groups' votes -- because THERE ARE OTHER WAYS of getting their votes.

Like getting out there and explaining how the Democrats' policy agenda is NOT contrary to their interests, even as firearms owners.

And damned if MrBenchley isn't just constantly on the hunt for "pro-gun democrats" doing just that ... and with so little luck.

Oh, I get it. You're still pretending that MrBenchley's "pro-gun democrats" are an identical set with gun owners. It's those special spectacles again.

As I said, democrats are gun owners too, like it or not. I get the feeling you would just prefer to ignore that fact or try to widdle away at our rights anyway to serve YOUR interests.

Maybe you could try cortisone cream, or sumpthin, for these feelings.

I don't live in your country, so what you do doesn't have a whole lot of affect on my interests. Oh, except when what you do results in people in my country dying -- WHICH IT DOES. You're such a newbie, you must never have seen this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=62366
http://www.torontopoliceboard.on.ca/minutes/2004/040122pmm.pdf

I'm not a Democrat at all, except of the New Democratic Party of Canada variety.

And you plainly don't have the first inkling of my thoughts on "what it means to be a gun owner". Get yourself a gold star and go fishing, is my advice. You want to look for posts by me containing words like subsistance (or "subsistence", I tend to spell it both ways -- having been francisée to a rather large -- and even now I just know I got it wrong) and aboriginal and rural. And really, you don't want to make assertions about what I think or don't think unless and until you've done that.

And oh dear, if I appeared to be wanting to widdle on your rights, I do apologize.

[goju]

122. I have to run

to be continued. Im working on the star, depending on the donation req.

[MrBenchley]

32. Boy, pro-gun democrats were a steaming pile of "help" too....

And it's worth noting that the claims that Gore lost because of guns almost always come from the NRA or the GOP...damn rare you find any but "unnamed Democrats" in a news story...

On the other hand, the gun lobby pumped millions inot the effort to defeat gore, especially in PA and MI, and lost both states.

[goju]

40. Sling mud if you want

But the fact is, wiser candidates are avoiding the issue. They learned from the past, but you go ahead and call all of us names because we own guns, thats the way to bring people together.

[MrBenchley]

43. Far as I can see, the gun lobby deserves nothing but contempt

"wiser candidates are avoiding the issue"
Is that why the gun nuts are lying their asses off about Kerry all over the web?

[goju]

45. What are OUR candidates saying, that should be your concern

Not much is the answer. Kerry is not stupid, he wont make the same mistakes we saw in 00 and 02.

[MrBenchley]

46. I'm quite happy with what Kerry is saying

but a third of our "pro gun democrats" admit they're not voting for him...go figure that.

[goju]

48. I did figure that

Partly as a result of anti-gun control sentiment among rural white men, Gore lost the electoral votes of several states--for example, West Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire--that would have probably gone Democratic and could have given him the election. In my own small town in Western New York, I spoke with union activists who told me that many of their male union buddies voted Republican because of the gun control issue.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_1_61/ai_69202825

Like it or not, people tend to take the constitution seriously. They seem to have an aversion to people taking away rights. Imagine that!

[MrBenchley]

49. Wow...anecdotal evidence that NRA lies work!

"Rural white men were easily manipulated by arguments from National Rifle Association propaganda that "big government" is going to take away their right to own hunting guns."

Good job by our "pro gun democrats"...oh wait, they were no fucking help at all. Just like they are as useless as tits on a bull this year.

[goju]

51. Amazing

You dont care that Gore lost states in 2000 because of his gun stance, all you care about is bashing dems who own guns. Its a sad day when a progressive shows such intolerance for others.

Who is going to be "useless" this year: big tent, inclusive, tolerant progressives or anti gun shills?

[MrBenchley]

52. Even more amazing....

You actually think we should pander to the scum of the earth instead of confronting their lies with truth...

"Its a sad day when a progressive shows such intolerance for others"
It's an everyday occurance around here when somebody posing as a progressive shills for scum like the NRA and the gun lobby.

"Who is going to be "useless" this year"
We can already see who is useless....the "pro gun democrats" here have nothing but excuses as to why they can post anything pro-Democrat on those gun owner forums around the web...and a third of them admit they're not voting for Kerry.

[goju]

55. Pandering to who?

I support Kerry's individual right to own firearms, do you? Since you dont support his right, being that hes not in a militia, who are you voting for? Are you pandering to him instead of confronting his lies? Who ARE you shilling for?

Why do I have to post on a gun owner forum? What difference does that make? Kind of nice how you set up some ridiculous requirement or benchmark that you know ANY liberal would not even entertain then ridicule them because of it. Transpararnt and juvenile tactic, but why dont you jump on some right wing gun forum and post away?


And who cares how many people said they were voting for bush, anyone could come on here and cast a vote. What does that prove?

[MrBenchley]

60. Who was that lying their ass off about Al Gore?

Who was that poured lots of money into defeating him? Why it was the scum of the earth who make up the gun lobby. You know, Grover Norquist, Larry Craig, Sun Myung Moon, Ted Nugent, Charlton Heston...that rotten bunch.

"Why do I have to post on a gun owner forum? What difference does that make? "
Gee, that is a puzzle. Why would a "pro gun democrat" want to refute outright lies about his presidential candidate on an internet forum or make a proDemocrat case when issues of health care or civil rights or economics is discussed? Call for Nancy fuckin' Drew because clearly that is a mystery for the ages.

As for what difference that would make, I'd be willing to bet none...but then I've never been shy in pointing out what's really lurking under the gun rights sheet.

"why dont you jump on some right wing gun forum and post away?"
I don't own a gun....and I don't post under false colors...although clearly some are not troubled by that scruple at all.

But as for right wingers on open discussion forums like Delphi, I take them on all the time. And its amazing that when gun control comes up, it never seems to be a liberal or a moderate there that's peddling the crap we see here from our "pro gun democrats" pretty much every day.

[goju]

65. Who is lying about what the courts and law have said

Surprise, its you! Again, show me where the courts have outlawed marketing distribution or sales of guns. Oh yeah, we see who is lying.

Q: "why dont you jump on some right wing gun forum and post away?"
A: "I don't own a gun....and I don't post under false colors...although clearly some are not troubled by that scruple at all."

So, why are you posting here????? Why, if you dont own a gun, are you posting here? Since you spend so much time here, why not "make a proDemocrat case" for the gun control issue on right wing gun forums? Laugh! Yep, as you said, "Call for Nancy fuckin' Drew because clearly that is a mystery for the ages."

[MrBenchley]

67. The NRA and the gun lobby are lying....

The courts have ruled again and again and again that the Second Amendment confers a collective right, not an individual right.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=49341

"show me where the courts have outlawed marketing distribution or sales of guns"
Gee, wonder who ever claimed they did? Oh yeah, that was you.

What I said was that lawsuits about the sales, marketing and distribution of guns by the gun industry are valid...I even pointed you to several cases currently ratcheting through the courts.

"So, why are you posting here????? Why, if you dont own a gun, are you posting here? "
Because this is the Justice and Public Safety folder of Democratic Underground...not "fuckwits with guns get free rein to lie and post right wing horseshit."

"why not "make a proDemocrat case" for the gun control issue on right wing gun forums?"
Gee, the whole point is that those aren't supposed to be right wing gun forums but forums for gun owners to honestly state their opinions. Of course, what's over there is the same sort of lying gibberish as on Free Republic....and as Bob Dylan once sang "I'm not gonna tell you why that is." Some answers are so obvious as to seem silly.

[goju]

71. No, thats not what you said. Please be honest

I said the marketing distribution and sales of guns are not illegal, you said Sez you, the courts and the law disagree. Again, you are not being truthful.

"What I said was that lawsuits about the sales, marketing and distribution of guns by the gun industry are valid"

Show me

"Because this is the Justice and Public Safety folder of Democratic Underground...not "fuckwits with guns get free rein to lie and post right wing horseshit."

The "fuckwits with guns" reference shows how narrow minded you are. Democrats own guns too, like it or not. And what other Justice or Public safety posts have you made aside from gun issues? Anything in the past few days, months?

Q: "why not "make a proDemocrat case" for the gun control issue on right wing gun forums?"
A: Gee, the whole point is that those aren't supposed to be right wing gun forums but forums for gun owners to honestly state their opinions.

But you want us to jump on a right wing forum and do what, put a Kerry banner? What exactly, do you think its to be gained by that and why dont you do it yourself?

[MrBenchley]

80. That is EXACTLY what I said

"The "fuckwits with guns" reference shows how narrow minded you are."
Actually, it shows how restrained I am. You should have heard what I wanted to say.

"But you want us to jump on a right wing forum"
Again, the point is that those aren't supposed to be right wing forums but gun owners' forums....of course they are cesspools filled with dittohead lies, racist gibberish and outright stupidity. Ask me why sometime.

"What exactly, do you think its to be gained by that and why dont you do it yourself?"
What could be gained by having pro-Democratic opinions on a range of issues put forth in public, apart from possibly convincing readers to vote Democratic? I can't imagine why anyone claiming to be a gun toting liberal would ever want to do such a thing (snicker). As to why I don't do it myself, let me say it again: I don't own a fucking gun and I don't fly false colors.

[library_max]

82. Just in case facts matter,

According to an author search a minute ago, this week MrBenchley has posted in 42 JPS threads out of a total of 72 DU threads, so 58% of the threads he posted in were JPS.

In the same time period, goju has posted in 11 JPS threads out of a total of 21 DU threads, which is 52%. The difference here is not huge.

Also, he already pointed out that he debates right wingers on Delphi forums.

[MrBenchley]

88. If facts mattered...

Nah, i'm not going to go there....

This arose in part from our "pro gun democrats" trying to justify the Missouri legislature short-circuiting St. Louis' lawsuit against the gun industry by giving the industry a free pass from liability laws....several years after the suit had been filed and after the industry had lost all its legal challenges to the lawsuit.

[goju]

98. A better fact

might be total posts, not post threads. Do that search please.

[library_max]

101. The search function doesn't work that way.

You'd know if you had a star. The only posts I can search for individually are my own.

[goju]

110. Well then

I guess Id better get a star!

[library_max]

112. Good for you.

You do that by making a monetary contribution to DU. I think you can do it from the DU front page.

[goju]

119. Oh, I thought it was getting to a certain number of posts

What is the minimum donation, Im in a bind right now :hurts:

[library_max]

123. Sorry, I don't know the dollar amount. /nt

[iverglas]

96. I want to help you

Let's start by looking closely at the expression "fuckwits with guns". Let's make it an assertion: "there are fuckwits with guns". I think MrB would acknowldge that as an implied assertion in what he says.

What does it mean?

Does it mean that all people with guns are fuckwits?
Does it mean that all fuckwits have guns?

If you answered "yes" to either of the above, BEEP, you're wrong.

Let's try one of my favourite things: an analogy.

"There are women with blonde hair."

Does this mean that all women have blonde hair?
Does it mean that all blondes are women?

I'll bet you can see the answer now! NO - it doesn't mean either of those things! It means "some women have blonde hair". It happens to be true, of course. And it also means "some blondes are women". Yes it does!

Now, we don't know whether all women are blondes, or all blondes are women, but we do know that the person who said "there are women with blonde hair" DID NOT SAY that all women are blondes, or all blondes are women.

So can we try it on MrB's assertion? "There are fuckwits with guns."

Does it mean "some fuckwits have guns"?
YES! It does mean that!
Does it mean "some people with guns are fuckwits"?
YES! It does mean that!

Do we know whether all people with guns are fuckwits, or all fuckwits have guns? Well, maybe we do -- but MrBenchley DID NOT SAY that all people with guns are fuckwits, or that all fuckwits have guns.

Are we all agreed now? MrBENCHLEY DID NOT SAY THAT ALL PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE FUCKWITS -- OR THAT ALL FUCKWITS HAVE GUNS.

Now, you could do some homework, if you like.

When MrBenchley says "pro-gun democrats" say <blah blah>, is he saying Democrats with guns say <blah blah>?

Well, here's a hint.
He's saying that if and only if
"pro-gun democrats" = Democrats with guns.



Everyone please take a moment to submit his/her evaluation.

Was this lesson useful to you?
- yes, I have seen the error of my ways
- no, I still just don't get it
- refuse to answer on the ground that it may incriminate me

(if you pick the last option and do *not* mean that you realize that your little game has been soundly exposed and that you don't wish to admit this, please explain in the blank space left for this purpose)

If you need to think about it some more, ponder the fact that not all men are Aristotle.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

109. On the other hand

fuckwits here in the USA are pretty easy to recognize since they're so often hawking right wing horseshit....and they tend to get hostile and ugly when asked to use the rancid suet in their skull...such as by following elementary logic.

[iverglas]

100. yer doin it again

You copy, you paste, you ignore ...


goju: why not "make a proDemocrat case" for the gun control issue on right wing gun forums?"

MrBenchley: Gee, the whole point is that those aren't supposed to be right wing gun forums but forums for gun owners to honestly state their opinions.

goju: But you want us to jump on a right wing forum and do what, put a Kerry banner? What exactly, do you think its to be gained by that and why dont you do it yourself?


How could you NOT HAVE READ what MrBenchley said?

How could you have missed that "the whole point is", followed by THE WHOLE POINT?

The forums he is talking about are NOT self-described as (and I emphasize) "right wing gun forums", they are self-described (I assume he paraphrases) as "forums for gun owners to honestly state their opinions".

*IF* there are non-right-wing pro-"gun rights" gun owners
... and *IF* the forums in question are for gun owners to state their opinions
... WHY are there NO non-right-wing pro-"gun rights" gun owners -- LIKE, OH, YOU -- on those forums?

The problem would seem to be with the first condition ... it doesn't seem to have been proved to have been met ...


So anyhow, why do you ask MrBenchley (and I emphasize the problem)

But you want us to jump on a right wing forum and do what, put a Kerry banner?

when HE SPECIFICALLY SAID that this was NOT what he wanted you to do, and that what he DOES want you to do is post on a GUN OWNERS FORUM??

[MrBenchley]

102. I suspect he knows as well as I do....

what those forums really are, and what's lurking under that "gun rights" sheet....

[goju]

106. I dont know what they are but...

since you pointed it out, why the hell would I????

What is so hard for you and iverglass to understand. You said they were chock full of right wing terrorist nuts, or however you described it. Yet you want ME to go throw out pro Democratic messages there? Does anyone ever fall for that crap? Since you dont have to be a gun owner to post here, there is nothing stopping YOU from posting on those sites.

Help yourself and quit telling everyone esle what to do.

[MrBenchley]

111. Not so hard for me to understand...

You claim there's millions and millions of gun toting Democrats, but in fact every gun owners' forum is a right wing sewer. And you got nothing but excuses as to why you can't say anything pro-Democrat there.

I doubt things could be more obvious.

[goju]

116. What is obvious?

[MrBenchley]

120. obvious

ADJECTIVE: 1. Easily perceived or understood; quite apparent. See synonyms at apparent.
2. Easily seen through because of a lack of subtlety; transparent: an obvious political ploy.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/79/o0017900.html

[goju]

108. Same thing I told Benchley

why the hell would I????

What is so hard for you and iverglass (benchly) to understand. You said they were chock full of right wing terrorist nuts, or however you described it. Yet you want ME to go throw out pro Democratic messages there? Does anyone ever fall for that crap? Since you dont have to be a gun owner to post here, there is nothing stopping YOU from posting on those sites.

Help yourself and quit telling everyone esle what to do.

[MrBenchley]

115. Yup, its crystal clear...

Having gun nuts spout right wing crap and lie about the Democratic candidate day and night don't bother you in the slightest....You're quite happy if they do.

[goju]

117. And how did you come to that conclusion?

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

126. because ...

why the hell would I????

YOU are the one weeping about how the Democrats' stance on firearms control in general, or the assault weapon ban in particular, or whatever seems to be your problem, is going to cost Democrats votes and possibly the election.

MrBENCHLEY doesn't think any such thing. MrBenchley therefore doesn't see any need at all to go preaching to gun owners about the Democratic Party's gun control platform.

How obvious was that?

You said they were chock full of right wing terrorist nuts, or however you described it.

I really don't think that I, or anyone else, has ever used the word "terrorist" to refer to the denizens of the "gun owners'" boards in question. Really. Where can I buy those specs??

I think it's quite possible to be a racist, misogynist, Republican fuckwit without being a terrorist, don't you? Would you agree that you need to either (a) read more carefully, making an effort to take the meaning that was intended to be conveyed, or (b) stop making things up?

Since you dont have to be a gun owner to post <t>here, there is nothing stopping YOU from posting on those sites.

We know about MrBenchley: he thinks it would be a pointless waste of time. About as pointless as posting on a billionaires' board and trying to persuade them that Democratic income tax policy is a good thing. Ain't gonna happen. Now ... maybe we could find a "pro-capitalists' rights" Democrat to go explain to them how Democratic tax policy isn't the only thing they should be thinking about, though ...

And how much credibility would someone who doesn't own a gun have in such places?

But if YOU -- a gun-owning Democrat -- were to speak, and to speak in favour of the Democratic Party, would you not be speaking with a wee bit more credibility?

Aren't *you* worried that some voters might be persuaded to vote against the Democratic Party solely on the basis of its firearms control policy positions? Aren't *you* planning to vote Democrat even though *you* don't like those positions? So aren't YOU the perfect candidate for an attempt to persuade like-minded people to do the same?? Don't *you* WANT the Democratic Party to win the election?

[MrBenchley]

128. Funny...

Most Democrats I know are full of beans, clearly enjoying the Convention and rubbing conservatives' faces in the virtues of our excellent ticket and platform...while pointing out that the Republicans have nothing to run on but a bleak record of unrelieved failure on every issue, a handful of tired ancient slanders, and the hope of outright election fraud...

But our pro gun democrats are sitting here snivelling "why should I?" and "you can't make me."

Says volumes about them...more than I ever could, really. What was that typing exercise? "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party?"

[iverglas]

58. and yet more amazing

Somebody seems to be purporting to have deduced this:

all you care about is bashing dems who own guns

from this:

Good job by our "pro gun democrats".

I mean, if not to be saying that dems who own guns and our "pro gun democrats" are one and the same.

I don't think there are enough awards on the internet for all this entertainment.

And it just goes on ...

Its a sad day when a progressive shows such intolerance for others.

I wonder what that might be all about? Anybody care to make it clear to me?

anti gun shills

Now, my Oxford tells me:

shill a person employed to decoy or entice others into buying, gambling, etc.

Seems to me that this "employed to" bit is important -- it's the employer who is obviously intending to make the gain out of the process.

So who's the employer here? What stands to gain, and what, from firearms control?

Or maybe I should just ask: what's an "anti gun shill"? and do I know any? am I one?? And if not (i.e. if you just aren't gonna name names for me), why are you talking about them here??

[goju]

69. Really

You think he was being sincere or sarcastic when he said "Good job by our "pro gun democrats" Its not hard to deduce that he has no respect for gun owning democrats and uses choice language to drive that fact home.

"I wonder what that might be all about? Anybody care to make it clear to me?"

Its fairly clear to me. Anyone else have trouble understanding?

If you want to play semantics or jump all over dictionary definitions, by all means, go ahead. I find it boring and a waste of time. But is funny you took the time to look up the word. Maybe next you will attack my sentence structure?

[MrBenchley]

129. What's even easier to deduce is why

if one looks at today's postings from our "pro gun democrats."

[FeebMaster]

130. You mean pro-gun "Democrats"

You should check out the post I made today where I explained how get guns banned in the US again.

[iverglas]

56. imagine!

Like it or not, people tend to take the constitution seriously. They seem to have an aversion to people taking away rights. Imagine that!

And yet -- an awful lot of people in the US vote for politicians who promise to interfere in women's constitutional rights. (You can't actually take rights away, without at the very least amending the constitution, you see.)

Not much of an aversion there. They eat it up, in fact!

Oh ... you mean ... a lot of people don't give a shit about anybody else, but don't think that anybody should be the boss of them?

Yeah, that's very true. And those are for sure the people whose votes *I* would be going after.

[MrBenchley]

61. Even more amazing...

A shitload of those struggling mightily to take away women's constitutional rights are those peddling this rancid "gun rights" creed at the same time.

And many of this splendid bunch of "anti-Constitutional patriots" are those who fought long and hard to keep black citizens from enjoying their constitutional rights...and recently tried to pass a Constitutional amendment so gay people could be prevented from being given theirs.

[goju]

74. Well isnt that clever? Not really

You try to win support for your position by lumping everyone who supports gun rights, about 100 million of us, into the same pile as right wing fanatics. Does everyone who owns a car work for haliburton too? LOL

[iverglas]

89. well

You try to win support for your position by lumping everyone who supports gun rights, about 100 million of us, into the same pile as right wing fanatics.

You're just talking bumph again, aren't ya?

"Everyone who supports gun rights" would mean -- what, exactly? That this whole 100 million -- I assume you're talking about people who own firearms there -- opposes the assault weapons ban, and what else?

I guess that once one has falsely accused someone who disparages "pro gun democrats" of "bashing dems who own guns", it's just a perfectly logical leap to claim that "gun owners" are an identical set with "voters who oppose the assault weapons ban", or whatever else you're on about when you talk about "gun rights".

Problem is, you're quite wrong, aren't you?

But anyhow, that lump of right-wing fanatics -- the ones who are struggling mightily to take away women's constitutional rights and fought long and hard to keep black citizens from enjoying their constitutional rights and recently tried to pass a Constitutional amendment so gay people could be prevented from being given theirs AND oppose the Democrats on firearms control -- is a really big lump out of each of those pies.

"Gun owners" and "voters who oppose the Democrats on firearms control" ARE NOT an identical set.

But the anti-choice and the racists and the homophobes and "voters who oppose the Democrats on firearms control" ... well, they're not an identical set, but there sure is a great big lumpy overlap among all of 'em.

Does everyone who owns a car work for haliburton too?

Hey, you're getting it!!

Does everyone who owns a gun agree with the NRA?

Did anybody except you say they did?

[MrBenchley]

90. It's clever AND accurate

as a brief glimpse at the handful of far right wing fuckwits belonging to the Second Amendment Caucus will show.

[TX-RAT]

94. You say 100 million, Bowline says 65 million?

Anybody else want to take a shot at it?

[library_max]

113. Major edit - sorry, my bad.

The most recent reliable figure is 44 million gun owners (1994 - it's probably gone up since then). The 65 million figure is the number of handguns in the US, but of course many people own more than one. God only knows where the 100 million figure came from.

[goju]

70. Clarify

What women's constitutional rights are you referring to?

[iverglas]

91. guess

What women's constitutional rights do you imagine I am referring to?

G'head, have a free guess, on me.

[MrBenchley]

93. Kind of funny that someone even pretending to be liberal

would be in the dark on women's rights, isn't it?

[library_max]

75. Please don't let the fact that Gore actually won the election deter you.

Carry on.

[FeebMaster]

77. But Bush is in the white house.

Don't forget, the courts are never wrong.

[MrBenchley]

81. Yeah, gun owners were a shitload of help too.....

[FeebMaster]

84. Which brings us back to that old question which you

sort of answered so eloquently. "Why should gun owners vote for Kerry?"

[goju]

114. Dont let the fact that had Gore

taken ONE more state, the Florida fiasco wouldnt have mattered.

Its simple math to me, and why make the same mistakes over and over again.

[library_max]

127. Which state?

In which state can you document that Gore lost because of gun control? I'm sure you can find me some opinions on that subject, especially NRA opinions; but can you produce facts that actually demonstrate that, in any particular state, Gore lost because of gun control and not for any other reason?

Otherwise, this "one state" business is malarkey.

[lansing]

30. So the

squirrel I'm looking at, has what colour of feathers?

[DavidMS]

22. Thats like asking

"Have you stoped beating your wife?"

Its not a valid question. The valid question, I believe, is are there any valid study on the effects of firearms restriction on crime rates?

Once that can be established, speaking about regulating specific types of firarms to prevent their misuse becomes a valid set of questions.

Its like talking about abortion without first talking about family panning.

[iverglas]

24. lordy, lordy

The original question:

Is There Any Evidence That Letting the AWB Expire...
will make us any SAFER?????

The response:
Thats like asking
"Have you stoped beating your wife?"

My response:
Eh???

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a LOADED question, if the person to whom it is asked has never beaten his/her wife. It CAN'T BE ANSWERED by that person. Ever. Under any circumstances. It is in fact a non-question.

What has that got to do with the question at hand??

You evidently don't like the question at hand. That doesn't really mean there's anything wrong with the question.

"The valid question, I believe, is are there any valid study on the effects of firearms restriction on crime rates?"

And here's my favourite answer to that one:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

"Its like talking about abortion without first talking about family panning."

Wot an odd thing for one of you folks to say. "Talking about abortion", I take it, means talking about the right of women to have abortions. And there's absolutely no need to talk about "family planning" first. I mean, somebody isn't saying that women need reasons to have an abortion, is he?

That apart, I haven't a clue what your statement might mean. How on earth is asking whether it will be beneficial to revoke a policy that can itself be very reasonably expected to have beneficial effects, and that can't be demonstrated to cause any harms, "like" talking about abortion without first talking about family planning??

If I can attempt to understand you, you're saying that abortion would not be necessary if everyone had access to appropriate family planning methods. Of course, that simply isn't correct; no contraception is 100% effective, and the expectation that we will ever, let alone in the near future, have a world in which everyone uses contraception is bizarrely unrealistic. Abortion is a right, and a necessity, right now, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future no matter what else we do.

Just as it isn't correct to say that an assault weapons ban would not be necessary if everyone had, what, an education and a job and a roof over his/her head? That isn't correct either. There are likely to be bad and crazy people with us for quite some time.

And the other little problem is that in order to make that comparison, if it's the one you're making, you'd need to have established that assault weapon possession is a right, *and* that the state has no justification for interfering in its exercise. (You know, like women's right to an abortion.)

If you were to put your assertion in the form of a question, why, I would indeed be seeing a loaded question.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Hmm; where was it proved that I have beaten my wife?

How can the right to possess an assault weapon be restricted when the state has no justification for restricting it? Hmm; where was it proved that the "right" in question is a right and that the state has no justification for restricting it?

[DavidMS]

99. So is...

Is There Any Evidence That Letting the AWB Expire...
will make us any SAFER?????

I am not saying that conclusive proof is needed to enact gun control. What I am saying is (and has been) that it doesn't address the roots of the the problem. Gun Control does not address Wealth Disparity, corruption, dysfunctional educational systems where conservatives push 'creation science' and young people do not learn that science is not a set of correct answers but a series of properly performed tests on the natural world around us. Or domestic violence (banning domestic abusers from owning a firearm is insufficient when they can still own butcher knives and its victims are not subsequently trained to be victim proof and learn how to say 'no' and back it up with a few well placed hand strikes or equivalent). Until the roots of crime on a societal level are addressed gun control is worse than useless because it distracts from addressing underlying socio-economic problems.

I agree with you that there are bad people who won't be deterred by proper socialization, an education satiable for a citizen and affordable health care, however simply not being able to buy a gun won't deter their delinquency.

If I can attempt to understand you, you're saying that abortion would not be necessary if everyone had access to appropriate family planning methods. Of course, that simply isn't correct; no contraception is 100% effective, and the expectation that we will ever, let alone in the near future, have a world in which everyone uses contraception is bizarrely unrealistic. Abortion is a right, and a necessity, right now, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future no matter what else we do.

As for family planning its everything from assuring that every woman receives a good education and that condoms, diaphragms, etc. are widely available cheaply and without shame. And that the morning after pill is available over the counter and is normalized. And a woman can get an abortion in any county in the US without absurd 'waiting periods' hysterical 'patient information packets' or 'sidewalk verbal assault.' And doctors who preforms the procedure don't get death threats.

The so called debate over abortion is not about abortion. Its about women possessing their own sexuality independently of their fathers and latter husbands. Its about women being seen as people opposed to birthing centers on legs.

I guess I was not very clear in my first post.

[Bowline]

28. I believe the burden of proof is on those who seek to infringe on rights.

Those who wish to extend the ban must prove that it's extension will benefit us without infringing on the rights of Americans.

[MrBenchley]

33. Owning a military weapon isn't a right....

anymore than Ted Nugent is a civil rights leader.....

[Bowline]

57. That's where you and 65 million gun owners disagree. n/t

[MrBenchley]

62. Sez you...and the Aryan Nation...

but even the Republican fuckwits like Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert trying to block the renewal are relcutant to say any such thing...DeLay and Hastert are hiding behind "Chimpy didn't ask us to" while Chimpy hides behind "Well, if they pass it, I'll sign it."

[Bowline]

64. That's called "deniability".

Each side waits for the other to make the first move, knowing damn well they won't. They won't because they know that an anti-gun stance will cost them their jobs and all of the fantastic, tax-payer funded perks that go along with it. Any politician worthy of the title can see which way the wind is blowing on this issue and they've wisely chosen to not take a public stand.

[MrBenchley]

68. No shit, sherlock...

Notice they don't dare pretend out loud that there's any sort of public support for these weapons being on the street....or that there's any sort of civil rights involved....or that the ban is only cosmetic...or any of the other little balls of shit our "pro gun democrats" scurry around with daily like dung beetles....

"They won't because they know that an anti-gun stance will cost them their jobs"
In fact, though, they're faking an atni-gun stance because they hope to fool moderates while pandering to the scummiest fringe on the far right. Hence the lip service.

[Bowline]

78. No on has to prove "support" for these weapons.

Your side has to prove that there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory that America is a safer place if I can't have a folding stock or a bayonet lug on my rifle.

[MrBenchley]

83. No one can even try to pretend there is any.....

which is why the GOP is paying lip service to the ban while trying to avoid voting for it. Not even the dimmest of those fuckwits wants to face voters having votged "No" on an assault weapons ban....

[Bowline]

86. You are probably correct.

A vote either way could piss off about 1/2 of the voters or the other. Both sides want it to quietly die and become a non-issue. Which is exactly what will happen by the end of September. The ban will sunset, pre-ban bayonet lugs and grenade launchers will be legal again, and life will continue as it has for the past 10 years. No blood running in the streets, no kindergartners bringing Uzis to class, no change really.

[MrBenchley]

92. Yeah, my estimate was correct, yours was not...

The GOP would be taking a gamble on it if they thought it was even close to 50-50, like they did with their "We hate gays" amendment. They're not .

[Bowline]

97. Objection to the gay marriage amendment was far more vocal ...

than any support for gun control. The fundamental difference is that a marriage amendment wrongly sought to use the Constitution to deny individuals their rights. The Constitution serves only to limit the powers of government, NOT individuals. Too bad our elected representatives haven't figured that out yet.

[MrBenchley]

105. And funnily enough...

the same fuckwits pushing the "we hate gays" amendment were more or less the same exact fuckwits who oppose gun control....

[EconGeek]

135. Gay Rights == Gun Rights

Gay rights, and Gun rights are the same basic right.

We own our bodies. If we didn't, then we'd be slaves to whoever did.

Therefore, if we own them, we have the right to use them as we wish-- this includes marrying who we want. And to defend them, this includes the right to the tools to defend them.

This is why the Bill of Rights supports both Gay rights, and, explicitly, gun rights.

Now, I have known many gun owners. I've heard a few say homophobic things... but I've gotten far less grief from gun owners for being gay, than I have from gays for having friends who own guns!

I dont' understand it. But the right is the same. Anyone who wants to infringe on rights, especially rights built into the constitution-- whether they be gay marriage or gun rights-- is someone who does not believe in the foundation document of the country.

[library_max]

137. US courts have ruled consistently

that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right to keep and bear arms outside the context of the "well-regulated militia." And the armed militia is dead as a doornail in this country. There isn't a real one anywhere. There isn't even a draft any more.

[MrBenchley]

139. On the other hand...

The "gay gun owners group" our trigger happy friends keep trying to pretend is real disrupted a Gay Pride march, endorses anti-gay Republicans, blacklists pro-gay Democrats and Progressives (but not anti gay right wingers), and mysteriously stays silent as the tomb whenever there are anti-gay slurs on gun owner forums...go figure THAT.

[MrBenchley]

138. Not even close to reality.....

But hey, it's hilarious to see somebody try to stick up for the homophobic fuckwits who make up the Second Amendment Caucus...

[library_max]

76. First of all, not all 65 million gun owners are RKBAers.

There are gun owners who have posted on this very board who do not believe that individual RKBA is a constitutional right.

Also, the U.S. courts have consistently ruled that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual RKBA, but that it applies only in the context of the militia. Every standing decision has been in favor of the gun control measure and against the gun owner(s) in the case.

[Bowline]

87. The courts have ruled a lot of things.

Not all of which agree with the Constitution. How many times have the courts denied people basic rights because of their interpretation of the Constitution. One of these days the Congress will get off it's lazy asses and take back the power it has given up to the courts. Perhaps one day the legislature will actually legislate and tell the courts to buzz off.

[library_max]

104. It has always been the prerogative of the courts to interpret the law.

To legislatively overrule a Supreme Court interpretation, it requires a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. The one that's already there clearly places RKBA in the context of the armed public militia, which no longer exists.

[LadyMarie]

163. "Rights" vs Responsibilities

Hi Benchley,

I have a question:
Have you ever read the Militia Act of 1792? http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
It describes what the militia is and also what "military weapons" they must have. Basically a listing of exactly what the current state of the art in military weapons was at the time.

Notice also that this act has NEVER BEEN REPEALED and therefore your lack of owning a firearm puts you in violation, as does your lack of reporting for duty. unless of course you aren't a citizen between the ages of 18 and 45.

Now if we can get back onto some honest, cited, and identifiable facts, this thread would be much more enjoyable to read.

Hugs, and love always,
B-)

[MrSandman]

131. Wasn't part of the reason for the sunset provision...

To allow proponents to demonstrate its efficacy?

[EconGeek]

136. Good point--- and its been ineffective.

But that's not surprising since the banned weapons were very rarely used in crime prior to the ban....

[library_max]

148. Psst. Your tombstone is showing. /nt

[Gord]

140. sdf

[thomas82]

141. So tell me

why anyone would feel threatened by a folding stock and a bayonet lug? I can see the concern over the Magazine capacity, but the ban on cosmetic features is ridiculous. Let the ban die and get on with life.
Tom

[Bowline]

144. Because it was never about the folding stock or the bayonet lug...

It was about getting the American public used to the idea that "some" guns were bad and should be banned. Had this one stuck then they would have pushed for stricter rules, perhaps targeting all semi-auto weapons, or all weapons over a certain caliber, or some other such restriction.

The goal of the anti-gun platform is, always has been, and always will be, total disarmament of the American public. Anything else they tell you is simply spin doctoring to make you feel better about them.

[thomas82]

145. SAD

And just like the British the sheep will go along with it until its too late.
Tom

[MrBenchley]

146. "just like the British the sheep will go along"

Those poor slaves of the Queen, begging for assault weapons with which to defend themselves (snicker) and denied them by the ruthless dictatorship which is the British government....

[thomas82]

149. Yea just like in Australia

Crime is so bad that you cant even have a sword. Funny how folding stocks and bayonet lugs are so evil that moms cry themselves to sleep thinking of streets full of AK-47s.
Tom

[thomas82]

150. But seriuosly Americans don't want the ban

The CNN poll has 59% of america wishing to lift the AWB
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/10738.content.html

This webpage has evwen better numbers. (at bottom of page you must vote to get results)
Should the U.S. federal government continue the ban on assault weapons?

Yes 638 7%
No 7879 93%
http://www.kqed.org/index.jsp?flash=true

TOM

[library_max]

151. Web polls are crap.

From the CNN poll:

"This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein."

The KQED poll actually argues with you if you vote yes in favor of the ban, and won't let your vote count until you've been through four such arguments.

The WSJ poll is an actual scientific poll of probable voters. Hence the difference in the outcome.

[thomas82]

153. Could you please explain

Why the poll that says the 78% of America wants the ban is correct and accurate and the polls I posted are incorrect?
TOM

[MrBenchley]

154. Click and see....

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=19

[thomas82]

155. OK

so your point is? all I saw was another set of numbers that still showed that majority of the people polled wanted to lift the AWB.
Tom

[library_max]

160. Yes.

The WSJ conducted a scientific poll. They identified a valid sample group of prospective voters and polled them using standard legitimate polling methods.

The polls you posted are web polls. Anybody who wants to can respond to them. Groups like FreeRepublic send messages around to get everyone who agrees with them to vote in the poll. There are also many ways to vote more than once in the same poll, if you're willing to go to a little trouble. These factors bias the poll and delegitimize it.

The CNN poll even had a disclaimer which explained why it was not a valid poll, why it would not accurately represent the views of American voters, and I quoted that disclaimer in full in my last post. So I hope I have cleared up the last of your confusion on this point.

[library_max]

152. Yes, and the murder rate per capita in Australia

is less than a third of the murder rate per capita in the U.S. Not bad for a former prison colony, eh?

[LadyMarie]

164. gun death rates, an aussie perspective

how about this website then???
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/american.html

M

[MrBenchley]

166. Wow...where'd you dredge up that loony?

Talk about having screws loose....

[library_max]

167. How about it?

It's a load of bullshit. The facts are as stated - Australia's murder rate per capita is 33% of the US rate per capita. The rest is smokescreen. Australia is a former prison colony - think they've never heard of violence over there?

[Lazpash]

156. IMO, that's not the issue.

The issue is, has the AWB made us any SAFER? The answer, "no" at least 2 or 3 studies I recall... but they're a few months back and I don't recall specifics, just the conclusions. The law has NO merit, has deterred no discernible "crimes" and simply infringes upon the rights of law abiding Americans. It's useless, good riddance.

[MrBenchley]

157. Hahahahaha....So I guess that's another "no"

Clearly, there's no good reason to put these back on the market....

[thomas82]

158. wow!

you have seen the light. Do you want your AR-15 with a fixed or collapsable stock?
Tom

[MrBenchley]

159. I want them off the market, Tom....

and I don't care who knows it. So does 78% of the public, the party platform, Kerry and Edwards, and pretty much every liberal and moderate official, group and writer around.

[thomas82]

161. OK I see your point

MrBenchley,
But I want to keep my AR15 are my rights not important? All I do is target shoot and collect. I use my AR15 to teach my kids to shoot(which I could do with any rifle but this is America I have a choice right?). I do understand and respect your opinion, but I don't think gun owners rights should be sacrificed due to the actions of criminals and irresponsible gun owners. I talked with a British Officer today at work and he explained how pistols and semi auto rifles were outlawed due to one tragic shooting. Then he explained that criminals still have pistols and the great law that they passed has made things more dangerous in England (his words not mine) I just want to enjoy life, watch my kids grow up, go shooting every now and again and watch my kids grow up to responsible gun owners, grow old with the wife and when its my time die holding my Wifes hand. So I pray that Sen Kerry will worry about more important things if elected like Iraq and the F'ed up economy and not push for any more gun laws.
Tom

[library_max]

162. "I want" is not a right.

The murder rate in Britain is one-quarter the murder rate in America, per capita. The gun murder rate in Britain is 3% of the gun murder rate in America, per capita.

[MrBenchley]

165. Cry me a river...

"I talked with a British Officer today at work and he explained how pistols and semi auto rifles were outlawed due to one tragic shooting. Then he explained that criminals still have pistols and the great law that they passed has made things more dangerous in England (his words not mine) "
Jeeze-Louise--How many goddamn times are we going to have this OUTRIGHT lie posted here about some supposed British bloodbath? The entire United Kingdom has less gun crime in a typical year than a moderate-sized US city like Birmingham, Ala. does all by itself. This gets debunked on a regular basis and yet it seems every few days it pops up again.

"I don't think gun owners rights should be sacrificed due to the actions of criminals and irresponsible gun owners."
And most people don't think gun owners have a right to military-style weapons...nor do they have that right.

"On this issue, the powerful gun lobby carries more clout than the voices of ordinary Americans, who mostly support the modest ban on military-style weapons that have one purpose only: to mow people down. ...Inaction is inexcusable. Assault weapons pose a far greater threat in many neighborhoods than do foreign terrorists. "

http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/eguns4_20040804.htm