So How Are Pro-Gun Groups Reacting To Kerry?

[MrBenchley]

After all, we've been told over and over again that "gun control advocates" are frustrated and angry at the ticket (although that claim turns out to be utter horseshit). Surely, this must mean that pro-gunners are just ecstatic to have a Democrat they can call their own.....

(Hahahahahahaha)

Well, no....in fact, it's almost like the gun groups are nothing but sour bands of right wing loonies trying to promote an ugly backwards and out-of-date agenda...go figure that....

Here's the National Rifle Association: "like so much about the Kerry campaign, the attractive traits that Edwards offers to rural and Southern voters are only skin deep. His youthful appearance and boundless energy on the campaign trail belie a policy record that offers more questions than answers. Edwards` four years in the Senate thus far are characterized primarily by poor attendance, but the votes he has cast leave his record far closer to the Massachusetts liberal benchmark set by Kerry than to the views held by the voters of North Carolina.....John Edwards, like his running mate John Kerry, has cast the same anti-gun, anti-hunting votes as Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy. "

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=142

Here's the Gun Owners of America:"The fact is the Democratic Party and it’s supporters are still the anti-gun rights party. They still loathe gun owners and yes they still look down their elitist noses at gun owners. They still think the Second Amendment is an unnecessary obstacle to their views of America as a semi-Socialist State....Take John Kerry for example. He is a decidedly anti-gun rights politician. His record shows it. Yet he has been seen on the campaign trail posing with a shotgun and talking about what a hunting enthusiast he is. So which Kerry is the real Kerry? Put your money on the anti-gun Kerry my friend. The rhetoric might have indeed changed but the goal is the same for Liberals in America."

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/dhagin_20040727.html

Yeah, but those are the official bodies...with all the millions of rootin' tootin' gun totin' liberals our triggerhappy chums keep assuring us are out there, surely the gun owners' forums must be bursting with praise....

Uh...no. In fact, the ditto-monkey crap is even more furious this morning.

One amusing note though...the NRA, GOA, and all the gun nut forums I checked in with this AM all had the same pantload about how "upset" gun control advocates are with John Kerry....although none could give any examples....damn funny, isn't it?

[colonel odis]

1. they really seem to be a sad batch of liars.

it's amazing to see the anger and distortion that comes from having a short penis.

[MrBenchley]

2. Yesterday at one point

we had ONE thread from the trigger happy assuring us "gun control advocates" are angry at Kerry because gun control isn't being mentioned at the convention...

we had TWO threads from the trigger happy raging because gun control HAD BEEN MENTIONED at the convention...

and two more threads from the trigger happy pissing and moaning because Kerry was going to pass gun control when he got in office...

And the cherry on the cake is that we had a half-a-dozen or so posts from "pro-gun democrats" looking forward avidly to working against Kerry....and another half a dozen or so boasting that nobody could make them say a single pro-Democratic word on any gun owner forum anywhere....

welcome to the gungeon...

[RoeBear]

80. Care to tell me what...

..I was pissing and moaning about?

[enfield collector]

5. penises and guns, how original. did you just make that up?

[MrBenchley]

6. So lies about Democrats don't bother some people

as much as statements about the liars' er, shortcomings....hmmmmmmm.

[BOHICA06]

3. The NRA counts voting record ....

as all important.

2002 and for several cycles before - District 5 in Florida - they endorsed Karen Thurman (D) because of her Grade "A" voting record.

John Dingle (D) from the Detroit area always gets endorsed by the NRA - because of his voting record on gun issues.

Kerry & Edwards have to live with their votes

[MrBenchley]

4. The NRA is the scum of the earth....

but hey, who didn't know that?

"PITTSBURGH -- A man whose son was killed in the Columbine High School shootings literally walked in his child's shoes to the National Rifle Association convention, where he hoped Vice President Dick Cheney would address the federal assault weapons ban set to expire in September.
Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed with an assault weapon in the Littleton, Colo., killings five years ago Tuesday, said continuing the ban is common sense.
Assault weapons "are the weapons of gangs, drug lords and sick people," Mauser said before his three-block march to the convention, which runs through Sunday. "It is a weapon of war and we don't want this war on our streets."
Mauser entered the convention hall where the NRA was meeting, but was turned away by a security guard as several conventioneers applauded. A couple of conventioneers yelled "Get a life" and "Vote for Bush." "

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3015989/detail.html

[BOHICA06]

7. As with all single issue organizations

if you support them, they are happy. Don't support them and the dogs come out. An expensive lesson for Gore in 2000 in Tenn, WV & Ark.

[MrBenchley]

9. As with all right wing shitheels....

fuck them and the horse they road in on....

[Bowline]

8. NO ONE was killed with an assault weapon at Columbine.

More disinformation from the gun-fearing crowd. Trying to stir the pot with lies long ago refuted.

The two whack-jobs at Columbine used a pistol (9mm, ironically the same caliber of the gun used by the police who wouldn't come to the aid of the injured and the endangered,hmmmm), a carbine (9mm) and two 12-gauge shotguns. Not a single assault rifle in the bunch.

Check your facts before you post something, especially on a topic of which you have so little knowledge.

[MrBenchley]

10. Wow, cop bashing AND right wing disinformation!

All in one post. Amazing what our "pro gun democrats" will stick up for, isn't it?

[Bowline]

11. Those are the undeniable facts. Are you disputing them, or just ranting?

The facts are what they are. Despite your fervent desire that there had been an assault weapon at Columbine, there just wasn't one. Sorry.

[MrBenchley]

12. Those are facts the way Fox Noise is fair and balanced....

Fuck the NRA.

[Bowline]

14. Nice dodge! I'm sorry the facts don't agree with your version of reality.

Do a little research. Find out what guns were used by the sociopaths at Columbine. Then get back with me and tell me which of the guns were assault weapons. I'll be waiting.

Oh, and Fox News and the NRA have nothing to do with these facts.

[MrBenchley]

18. Gee, ask me next

when I'm going to care when guns and the gun lobby are being unfairly characterized at Columbine...

That's right on the list behind sympathizing with Rush Limbaugh's drug problem on my "to do" list...

[BOHICA06]

13. It's a rant ...

sorry I mistook it for civil discussion.

[Bowline]

15. No, it's just another of his rants.

I pointed out a couple of facts to him, they didn't agree with what he wanted to hear so, instead of disputing the facts of the case, he's off on some rant against Fox News and the NRA, neither of which were even mentioned in the article nor had any bearing on the situation. Pretty standard stuff from him, actually.

[Romulus]

16. hey HEY BOHICA04

:hi:

welcome to the "party place"

[MrBenchley]

19. Gee, if you want civil discussion of right wing fuckwits...

maybe you shouldn't wander on to a liberal discussion board...

[goju]

17. You know how we are reacting

This is another setup?

Kerry isnt the ideal candidate for gun owners. But Kerry is the ideal candidate for democrats who have a life beyond guns and actually care about the country. Are you asking if I would prefer some other candidate? That is impossible to answer. There is no such thing as an ideal candidate for me, unless I was running myself. We only have 2 real choices right now.

Unlike you, the gun debate is only a small fraction of my concern. The war is the one issue I think is MOST pressing right now. What is yours? By your posting in this forum, you seem oddly fixated on gun control. I dont understand why but I hope you have other interests beyond it.

I will reassert my position from yesterday, the Kerry Edwards campaign is staying as far away from the gun control debate as possible. They, unlike you, do not want to alienate people simply because they own guns.

[MrBenchley]

20. It's no mystery how gun nuts are reacting...

pretty much the same way gun nuts react to eveything...with outright lies about Democrats and liberals....

"Unlike you, the gun debate is only a small fraction of my concern."
Funny, I do a search and I find you've posted in one thread in GD...2 in the Lounge, one gun related onein Activism, one in Media, one in the meeting room and TWELVE in the gugeon....

[goju]

21. So, IM a gun nut?

Its clever how you assert that anyone who owns a gun is gun nut but, you wont come out and say I am one, or will you.

My posting habits you mention, if you are presenting an accurate picture which is questionable considering your history and methods of debate, are simple to understand. Most PROGRESSIVES dont alienate me and my opinions in other topics. YOU do. I dont know why, but I enjoy the exchange as Im sure you do.

Gun ownership/self defense are the ONLY topics where I have been chastized by members here. Does it surprise you that I would defend myself and my positions? Does it upset you that I would try to defend my rights? Would you prefer that gun owners werent a part of this party?

[MrBenchley]

22. SSDD

"Most PROGRESSIVES dont alienate me and my opinions"
Be sure and tell them how much you disagree with the party platform...

"Would you prefer that gun owners werent a part of this party?"
Which gun owners would those be, pray tell? Would they be the ones attacking Democrats here, the ones posting right wing talking points, or the ones who announced they weren't voting for Kerry? Because after all, "gun owner" opinion here spans the gamut from A to A and back again.

[goju]

24. SSDD?

What is that?

Who said I disagree with the party platform? Aside from ONE position (in the gun issue), the AWB, I agree wholeheartedly with the platform. Close the gun show loopholes, mandatory trigger locks, but most importantly, enforce the laws more thoroughly. Am I not allowed to disagree with ANYTHING from the platform.

Who is attacking Democrats here? I havent seen anyone attack any candidate, only certain positions the candidate holds. Thats why I said there are NO perfect candidates. You can agree with a candidate's overall position while disagreeing with one or two of the specifics you know.

The ones who "announced" they werent voting for Kerry can be discounted any number of ways. Any idiot can come on and vote anonymously. Why not start a thread asking, not polling, who people will vote for. Because you might find that the ones you argue with the most are Kerry supporters and the ones who said they were voting for bush are anomolies?

[MrBenchley]

25. Wow....

"The ones who "announced" they werent voting for Kerry can be discounted any number of ways."
Hey, no skin off my nose, either...it wasn't like I find our "pro gun democrats" particularly convincing as it is.

[goju]

27. Not so surprising

"Hey, no skin off my nose, either...it wasn't like I find our "pro gun democrats" particularly convincing as it is."

Yet you cite this meaningless pole ad naseum! What particular convincing did you require?

[FeebMaster]

31. SSDD = Same Shit Different Day.

[MrBenchley]

23. Sure doesn't seem like its those "gun control advocates"

who are attacking Kerry, does it?

Of course, it would be inspiring to see how those millions of gun owning liberals we keep being told are out there are fanning out across the internet at places like highroadrage and AR15 and Glocksuckers.com and the like spreading the pro-Democrat message....

But that effort doesn't exist. Go figure THAT.

[goju]

26. Doesnt seem like you are either

But, YOUR effort to dare people into posting on right wing sites so you can mock them, thats just entertaining.

Does it ever work? Show me some posts where you challenge right wingers. If you can show me JUST ONE forum where you post the Democratic message on a right wing forum, I will sign up and spread the word on ANY gun forum, or other forum for that matter, that you choose.

Deal?

[MrBenchley]

28. As I've said several times...I DON'T OWN A FUCKING GUN

As I've said several times...THOSE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE RIGHT WING SITES...it just turn out that there's nothing but dittomonkey rubbish on them for reasons that don't fool anybody.

"If you can show me JUST ONE forum where you post the Democratic message on a right wing forum, I will sign up and spread the word on ANY gun forum, or other forum for that matter, that you choose. "
What is it about "pro gun democrats" that they are utterly and completely UNABLE to read and/or comprehend? What is it about "pro gun democrats" that they cannot be troubled to speak up for the a liberal cause unless they get some sort of bribe?

I suspect we all know...just as I suspect any resultwill amount to "oh poor me the liberals at DU are picking on my poor widdle guns" AGAIN.

http://forums.about.com/realopinions/messages?msg=19605.1

http://forums.about.com/realopinions/messages?msg=19595.1

http://forums.about.com/realopinions/messages?msg=19557.1

[goju]

34. Hmmm, ok so

You cant or wont post on gun forums because, you dont own a gun. Yet you can post here because... why? Hmm, tough one!

"What is it about "pro gun democrats" that they are utterly and completely UNABLE to read and/or comprehend? What is it about "pro gun democrats" that they cannot be troubled to speak up for the a liberal cause unless they get some sort of bribe?"

LOL, you will notice that I didnt even ask you to post on a gun forum. Its that whole reading and comprehension thing you mentioned. Why is it you cant speak for the cause? Why do you need me to do it for you? Oh yeah, thats right.. you dont own a gun. What do they call this place, the "gundeon"?

Welcome back to logical consequenses

[MrBenchley]

37. Once more around the maypole, ribbons fluttering....

What is it about "pro gun democrats" that they are utterly and completely UNABLE to read and/or comprehend? What is it about "pro gun democrats" that they cannot be troubled to speak up for the a liberal cause unless they get some sort of bribe?

"You cant or wont post on gun forums because, you dont own a gun."
Yup, believe it or not, there are people in this world who do not pretend to be what they are not and go trolling on other people's forums. Of course that concept seems to be utterly alien to our "pro gun democrats"....

A gun forum is a forum for gun owners....someone who does not own a gun is not a gun owner.

"Yet you can post here because... why? Hmm, tough one!"
Pretty easy actually...this is the Justice and Public Safety folder of Democratic Underground...not DicklessBlowhardsBeatTheirMeatOverGuns.com...

Of course there are plenty of such places, and all of them are packed with ignorant dittohead rubbish and bigotry. No hide nor hair of those gun owning liberals our "pro gun democrats" keep assuring us are out there to be seen. (Some reasons are so obvious as to seem silly.)

"What do they call this place, the "gundeon"?"
Oh, so close.....

"You cant or wont post on gun forums because, you dont own a gun." AND "you will notice that I didnt even ask you to post on a gun forum" within five sentences of each other...I think that's a new record.

[goju]

43. Oh ok, well now that makes sense. Thank you

So, you wont post on gun forums, but you will post on gun threads. But you dont own a gun. But its ok because you are a Democrat. But you dont believe Democrats own guns. But you post on a Democratic gun forum and debate Democratic gun owners. I see, thanks for clearing that up! :crazy:

[MrBenchley]

45. Yup....

Believe it or not...this isn't a folder restricted to gun owners.

"you dont believe Democrats own guns"
And with plenty of good reason, it seems. Just look at all those pro-Democratic posts on gun owners forums...oh that's right. There aren't any.

[goju]

50. Yeah?

Look at all the pro-Democratic posts here. Oh thats right, this doesnt qualify as a gun forum by your twisted logic. Its Justice and Public Safety forum, nothing to do with guns. Despite the fact that 99% of all threads are about guns and you post in every one of them, its not a gun forum. You are making more and more sense, just keep going.

[MrBenchley]

52. Yup....

But hey....don't let me stop you...you're clearly on a roll....

[goju]

54. And clearly your roll is off-balance

But dont let that stop you from posting in a gun forum, even though you dont own one.

[MrBenchley]

58. Gee, I don't really have to...

but then it's hilarious that you think I do....I'm quite happy to let the sour little knot of freepers go down the toilet with their wretched cause this November.

But then I know that all but a tiny lunatic fringe favor gun control...and that the evidence on the web bears me out.

[goju]

62. Can you PLEASE try to make sense?

Seriously, its hard enough to battle the constant personal attacks, the very least you could do is try to be sensible. Reading your posts is like watching a bad movie, scrambled.

The tiny lunatic fringe you are so familiar with are the real problem, not us. But I doubt any evidence bears out any of your claims. Just a hunch.

Most people favor sensible gun control like they would sensible voting eligibity laws. What the informed voter doesnt favor, are senseless laws and senseless litigation aimed at one industry by another. And yes, the gun control business IS an industry as much as it is a political catch aimed at the frightened and mis-informed. Example, assault weapons are more deadly than hunting rifles.

[MrBenchley]

64. That IS funny....

"The tiny lunatic fringe you are so familiar with are the real problem, not us. But I doubt any evidence bears out any of your claims."
Yeah, it shows. Just look at all thosee posts by moderates and liberals on those forums...oops, there aren't any. Only far right wing dittohead shit.

[MrBenchley]

29. Sure seems like those millions of gun owning liberals don't exist

But then who's surprised that that's a lie, too?

Me neither.

[MrBenchley]

30. Still no sign of any pro-Democrat remarks on gun forums

although there are plenty of attacks on Kerry...

But wonder of wonders, the schlub from Oshkosh's sad tale is all over those forum...you know, the story our "pro gun demolcrat" can't provide a link for.

[goju]

36. Still no sign of mrb's alleged contribution to right wing forums

[MrBenchley]

38. Sure there was....and you even responded to the post....

#28...

[goju]

40. LOL post 28 is YOURS

[MrBenchley]

42. Uh-huh....stay with that thought....

Tell me, did you think I could respond in somebody else's post?

I hear the gears grinding.....

[goju]

47. What are you talking about

Its your post, why did you claim that was my response to you? Im hearing some gears too, but I think you need to grease them or something.

[FeebMaster]

32. Why do you have

"gun control advocates" in quotes?

[MrBenchley]

33. How are you coming on those pro-Democrat posts on gun nut forums....

[goju]

35. Still waiting for you!

The posts you made in Delphi forums were pathetic. EVERYBODY there was a progressive.

Read carefully, if you want me to venture into a right wing forum, I say, you go first. Show me just one post where you push the liberal agenda, and I will jump on any forum you want and post away.

[MrBenchley]

41. How can anyone do anything but laugh....

"The posts you made in Delphi forums were pathetic"
Those would be the posts that you claim I didn't link to...hokay...

"EVERYBODY there was a progressive. "
Not even close to true.

"Read carefully, if you want me to venture into a right wing forum"
Nope...stay right here. Don't go into any gun owner's forum because those places are synonymous with the stupidest and most dishonest right wing nuts around. Clearly, if there are gun-owning Democrats anywhere, there aren't enough of them to even be a pimple on a gnat's hind end, as the slightest glance at any gun owner's forum will show.

As to why our "pro gun democrats" seem to have nothing but flimsy excuses why THEY can't actually say anything on those gun owner forums, the answer is blindingly obvious.

I love it when people actually demonstrate by their own words and deeds while arguing with me that my claims are 100% true.

[goju]

46. So you are just making it up as you go along

If you think any of your post even remotely resembles logic, you are truly fooling yourself.

You didnt post on any right wing forum as you so boldly claimed. You pointed to a ridiculous 8 post thread with no opposition to your post. The other 2 links, well hehehehe, you didnt even post in. But thats ok, I understand.

Thank you.

[MrBenchley]

53. Yup, that's me...

I personally went to all those gun owners'forums and ERASED all the pro Democratic posts by the millions of gun owning Democrats.....

AS for the rest of your rubbish...anybody at all can click on the links and see the threads...and the rest of the board...and the many right wing dittohead posts..and what it looks like when real demcorats and progressives respond....

[goju]

56. Well I guess Im not "anybody"

Because I cant find a single post by YOU where YOU were challenged by a rethug. But feel free to correct me, just point me to the post where that occured and I will hold up my end of the deal.

Ok? I cant see why you wouldnt oblige me since you are "evidently" concerned about putting the Democratic message out there.

[MrBenchley]

59. Jeepers...that IS funny....

"Ok? I cant see why you wouldnt oblige me since you are "evidently" concerned about putting the Democratic message out there."

No problem...

http://forums.about.com/realopinions/messages?msg=19638.1

By the way, chickenfoot there is typical of the sort of freeper shithead who argues against gun control over there...funny, we never seem to have a liberal or progressive there who ever does anything but support gun control....

http://forums.about.com/realopinions/messages?msg=19638.1

[goju]

66. Wow, not that is some real debate there!

Good thing only ONE milquetoast idiot conservative showed up huh? Laugh.

Ok, you are a true warrior for the cause :eyes: Nevertheless, I will follow through. You tell me where to post, any forum you choose, and I will spread the message. Just give me a few hours, I have a class in 20 in minutes and half of the class hasnt shown up yet.

[FeebMaster]

39. I haven't made any.

I generally stick to making fun of them for supporting gun grabbers like Reagan and Bush and Bush or calling themselves small government Republicans while supporting the Drug War and War on Terror and other bits of massive government spending.

I'll be happy to go make some pro-Democrat posts, though. Just tell me one thing: Why should gun owners vote for Kerry?

[MrBenchley]

44. No shit? You haven't made any?

[goju]

48. Nor has mrb posted in anything BUT friendly forums

But he keeps his posts here real tidy and easy to read! Thats gotta count for something?

[FeebMaster]

49. That's what I said.

So why should gun owners vote for Kerry? Tell me and I'll go relate it to the gun owners on highroadrage.com.

[goju]

51. Cant find it

Wont bring up the site

[FeebMaster]

60. Here it is.

www.thehighroad.org

[MrBenchley]

55. Another swell "pro gun democrat" post...</sarcasm>

[FeebMaster]

61. Whatever that means.

Tell me why gun owners should vote for Kerry, I'll spread the word to gun owners around the internet.

[MrBenchley]

63. No, feeb, I don't think I will....

I think gun owners should continue to be utterly unable to think of a single progressive or liberal idea or cause for themselves....and announce that they can't in a really loud voice.

[FeebMaster]

65. I'm not a gun owner.

But I'll be more than happy to relate any pro-Kerry message you'd like me to relate to gun owners on thehighroad.org explaining why they should vote for Kerry.

[MrBenchley]

67. Hey, the list of things you're not must be endless....

"I'll be more than happy to relate any pro-Kerry message you'd like me to relate to gun owners on thehighroad.org"
Yup....you're a tiger unleashed, all right.

[FeebMaster]

68. So do you have one?

A message, that is, for me to relate to the gun owners at thehighroad.org on why they should vote for Kerry?

[MrBenchley]

69. Not me, feeb....

But then I'm not pretending the folks on gun owner forums are anything but ignorant pieces of right wing shit, or that their opinions are worth cultivating, or that they're ever going to vote Democratic in a million years...

I just find it hilarious that those who claim those folks aren't seem afraid to say a single proDemocrat word in any gun owner forum...and in some cases even announce out loud they can't even think of one...

That sure convinces me that the RKBA posters hereabouts are liberals and progressives who just happen to own guns...not.

[FeebMaster]

70. Well I'm certainly not claiming

"Not me, feeb.... But then I'm not pretending the folks on gun owner forums are anything but ignorant pieces of right wing shit, or that their opinions are worth cultivating, or that they're ever going to vote Democratic in a million years...

I just find it hilarious that those who claim those folks aren't seem afraid to say a single proDemocrat word in any gun owner forum...and in some cases even announce out loud they can't even think of one..."

that any of them can be convinced to vote Democratic. There are probably a few who will, but most will vote for Bush and some will vote for Badnarik. Some of them seem to think Bush is pro-gun for some reason and others just think he's less anti-gun than Kerry. No one thinks Kerry is pro-gun.

All I was asking is "why should gun owners vote for Kerry?"


That sure convinces me that the RKBA posters hereabouts are liberals and progressives who just happen to own guns...not.

Yes. You've made it quite clear what you think of gun owners.

[MrBenchley]

57. By the way, remember

the claim that "gun control advocates" were disgruntled with Kerry in any way turned out to be complete and utter horseshit...while gun groups are foaming at the mouth and our "pro gun democrats" have nothing but excuses as to why they can't respond.

Why it's almost like gun groups are nothing but sour bands of right wing loonies trying to promote an ugly, backwards and out-of-date agenda...

[MrBenchley]

71. Try and contain your surprise...no proDemocrat posts

on gun nut forums that I can see....

However, there are not-so-veiled threats for armed revolt on one forum if they don't get another piece of shit like Scalia on the Supreme Court. Now you'd think if they really had the "individual rights" interpretation they claim to have, they wouldn't need to change a fucking thing, but hey, that's why they call 'em gun NUTS.

[MrBenchley]

72. Still plenty of dittohead stupidity and ugliness

on those gun owner forums...and over here an RKBAer thinks Kerry is just like AshKKKroft, based on an article in a fuckwit libertarian rag...

[hansberrym]

73. Seems I also read about someone calling the platform 's ....

defense of the RKBA a sham.

Who was it that said this? The NRA? The GOA?

Who is hiding under them sheets?


"But hey, if this soft soap fools even a handfulk of gun loonies it's worth it."

"But hey, if it fools just one gun "enthusiast" into voting Democratic, it's well worth it."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=68601&mesg_id=68604&page=

[MrBenchley]

74. Hans, if you're outraged that the softsoap in the platform

says something vague about the Second Amendment, it's no skin off my nose.

I support the platform wholeheartedly, as I've said over and over. I support the right of Americans to keep and bear arms collectively, just as the Second Amendment says. I support closing the gun show loophole and banning assault weapons.

[hansberrym]

75. "Something vague" , you're sounding just like the NRA's bashing of

Kerry.

But then that IS my point.


Kerry has not been vague, he supportd the rights of sportsmen, hunters, etc. He is not talking about "collective hunting" for fucks sake.


And John Edwards said: "I believe that gun owners have the right to protect themselves provided by the Second Amendment."

YOU and the NRA are twisting the words of Kerry/Edwards to make it appear they are not saying that the RKBA is an individual right.


I am not outraged, in fact I find it rather amusing that we finally know who is hiding under them sheets.

[MrBenchley]

76. What a pantload, hans...

I support the platform and the candidates. If you don't love it, you can shove it.

"I am not outraged"
Yeah, it shows.

"John Edwards said: "I believe that gun owners have the right to protect themselves provided by the Second Amendment.""
Nope. Here's what he said.

""On … closing the gun show loophole, which I voted for, John Kerry voted for, I don't think somebody should be able to walk out of prison, convicted of a violent crime, walk across the street and buy a gun. But I believe in the second amendment. I believe in gun owners having the right, and having their rights protected by the second amendment. "

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/Vote2004/john_edwards_dnc_040725-2.html

An artful dodge, seems to me...and it emphasizes closing the gun show loophole.

[hansberrym]

77. It is you and the NRA calling Edwards' statement an artful dodge..

To accuse someone of an artful dodge is not high praise. If fact it is the same as calling someone a clever liar, or a teller of half-truths. That is exactly what the links you provided say about Kerry/Edwards.



"I believe in gun owners having the right, and having their rights protected by the second amendment"

Which right do you believe Edwards was referring to in the first phrase above, if not the RKBA?



Why are you spouting NRA talking points?

[MrBenchley]

78. Gee, hans...that is funny

and desperate...

"Which right do you believe Edwards was referring to in the first phrase above"
The right of Americans collectively to have a well regulated militia, of course...just as the courts have ruled....

"Why are you spouting NRA talking points?"
Jeeze, the NRA's dishonest talking point is that there's an individual right to a popgun in the Second Amendment, which is horseshit. It takes somebody totally out of touch with reality to pretend that the NRA advocates the opposite.

[hansberrym]

79. Now THAT really was an artful dodge.

The NRA's dishonest talking points that are the subject of our discussion are of course the NRA's LIE that Kerry/Edwards are somehow trying to DECEIVE the voters into believing that the platform supports an individual RKBA, but that it does not.


THAT is the same BS story you have been spreading.


Under the Collective Rights theory, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right to maintain a state militia, or as you put it, "The right of Americans collectively to have a well regulated militia".

The collectives rights argument denies that 2A is about "owning guns" or "hunting". But Kerry/Edwards have explicitly stated for the record that they believe the second amendment does protect hunting and gun ownership. Therefor, without the Lies and Spin of the NRA concerning the platform, Kerry/Edwards stated view of the second amendment is compatible with only the individual rights interpretation.



From Silveira:
There are three principal schools of thought that form the basis for the debate.

The first, which we will refer to as the “traditional individual rights” model, holds that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation. This view, urged by the NRA and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a prolific cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 227 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002).

The second view, a variant of the first, we will refer to as the “limited individual rights” model. Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.8


The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the “collective rights” model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates. After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second Amendment. (end quote)

[napi21]

81. I don't think the problem is banning assault weapons.

I've been on quite a few threads, and the problem most complained about wat the definition of an "assault weapon".

Most of us think the ban is for AK47's and AAR15's, and it's not.

I really thing if both sides would actually stop for a little while and listen to each other, this stupidity would be resolved.

[MrBenchley]

83. I've said more than once that I'm happy with the definition

offered by the bill before Congress now, sponsored by Democrats Corzine, Lautenberg, McCarthy, et al....

[hansberrym]

84. The problem I have with the AWB, is that its underlying goal ...

is to convince the public that NO military style weapons should be owned by the people at large.

If this was not apparent in the initial form passed 10 years ago, it certainly crytal clear in the reauthorization and extension bill S-1431 offered last July, but which has since been abandoned. That bill S-1431 sought to allow the Attorney General to ban any weapon with a potential military use (even an M1 garand).


I support requiring special registration of certain weapons, and in fact there already are regulations covering large caliber weapons and full auto weapons, so not much more regulation is needed in my opinion.

What I oppose, is the message that the possession and use of every weapon with a possible military use should be banned. That is directly at odds with the second amendment and the Supreme Courts intrepretation of it in US v. Miller.



I agree completely with your statement:
"I really thing if both sides would actually stop for a little while and listen to each other, this stupidity would be resolved."


And I think the party platform is a great step in taking the issue away from the extremists on both sides.

Don't you think it is odd that both the NRA, and some collective rights advocates, are trying thier best to deny that the Democratic party and our candidates for Pres and V.P. are coming out in favor of an individual RKBA?

My guess is that they are both afraid of losing thier respective positions of power should the majority of the people in the middle begin to discuss the issue within a more reasonable framework which recognizes that the extremes (ban them all v. make them all available) are not the only choices available.

[MrBenchley]

86. Ahem....

"Miller" ruled gun control was legal because that fuckwit's sawed off shotgun was clearly not a weapon for a well regulated militia....it did NOT say "every humnhole can have military style weapons" no matter how you badly want to spin it, hans.

[hansberrym]

91. What possible reason would the Supreme Court make the ruling...

they did, if there were not an individual right to own weapons suitable for use in a militia, or that could contribute to the common defense?

(From US v. Miller)
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.


and also from Miller:

The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
(end quote from Miller)



Why did the Supreme Court remand for further proceeding if there were NO individual right to own ANY weapon? Why did Mr Miller have standing to bring a second amendment defense? According to that lying jackass Reinhardt individuals do not have standing to bring a second amendment defense.


Why did the Supreme Court question whether the use of a PARTICULAR weapon could contribute to the common defense, if Mr Miller had no right to keep ANY weapon? If Mr MIller had NO right to keep ANY weapon, the court would have dismissed on the basis of standing, rather than remand for futher proceedings, which is what they actually did.


The logical reading of the Miller Court is that IF a weapon could be used to contribute to the common defense, THEN its possession and use is protected by the second amendment. That is the same reasoning used in Aymette v. State of Tenn. which is cited by the Supreme Court in its holding shown above.

[MrBenchley]

95. Who DO you think you're kidding, hans?

Why do you suppose gun control groups reference Miller in court actions and gun nut groups almost never do....

[hansberrym]

98. CIte please, which cases do you know of where Miller is not cited ...

by BOTH sides?


Why do you suppose collective rights advocates ignore Miller for its definition of "militia", "keep and bear arms", and the FACT that Miller's case was REMANDED for further proceedings? BECAUSE each of those facts would completely undermine the Collective Rights position.


How do you explain Judge Reinhardt's feigned ignorance below?


(from Silveira)
Thus, in Miller the Supreme Court decided that
because a weapon was not suitable for use in the militia, its
possession was not protected by the Second Amendment. As
a result of its phrasing of its holding in the negative, however,
the Miller Court’s opinion stands only for the proposition that
the possession of certain weapons is not protected, and offers
little guidance as to what rights the Second Amendment does
protect.
(end quote from Silveira)


Why would the Supreme Court consider whether a weapon is, or is not, suitable for use in the militia, if that suitability did not determine whether the possession and use of that weapon was protected by the second amendment?

The lying jackass Reinhardt would have us believe that the Supreme COurt considered whether the weapon had a use for the common defense
JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT, and we are to draw no conclusion from the fact that they considered the utility of the weapon rather than whether Mr Miller was a member of the National Guard (blows away the limited individual rights argument) or whether Miller has standing since he was an individual as opposed to a state(that blows away the collective rights arguments)

[MrBenchley]

108. Ask me next

if I want to play "junior jurist" with you, hans....especially since you've been shown to be wrong so repeatedly.

[library_max]

111. The ruling of the Miller case was that Miller had no right to the weapon

and that the Second Amendment applies only in the context of the militia. That's the precedent. The rest of your song-and-dance is just bunk, and has been exploded dozens of times.

[MrBenchley]

82. Whereas the "NRA talking points" line was both clumsy and ludicrous...

[hansberrym]

85. Do you have a "hidden agenda" or something bench?

Your reply is exactly the type of crap that the NRA is spreading. The NRA is trying to convince voters that Kerry/Edwards do NOT support an individual RKBA. See "Hidden Agenda" in the link provided in your initial post.

But it is crap. Kerry's and Edwards' statements are not ambiguous, nor are they "soft soap", nor are they "trying to fool" anybody despite what you and the NRA say about them.


The collectives rights argument denies that 2A is about "owning guns" or "hunting". But Kerry/Edwards have explicitly stated for the record that they believe the second amendment does protect hunting and gun ownership. Therefor, without the Lies and Spin of the NRA concerning the platform, Kerry/Edwards' stated view of the second amendment is compatible with ONLY the individual rights interpretation.



From Silveira:
There are three principal schools of thought that form the basis for the debate.

The first, which we will refer to as the “traditional individual rights” model, holds that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation. This view, urged by the NRA and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a prolific cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 227 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002).

The second view, a variant of the first, we will refer to as the “limited individual rights” model. Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.8


The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the “collective rights” model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.

[MrBenchley]

87. I'm a liberal, hans....

I got no hidden agenda....I support the Democratic platform, which includes commonsense gun control, of the sort Edwards and Kerry have stood for their entire lives.

I'm not one of these extremists...you know the kind, the ones who claim liberal judges are lying, who lie about what the courts have ruled concerning the Second Amendment, who pretend that there's some right for fuckwits to have assault wespons....

[hansberrym]

90. So do you now admit that Kerry, Edwards, and the party platform

support an INDIVIDUAL RKBA?


Or are you going to keep spreading the same crap the NRA is spreading saying that Kerry and Edwards are only trying to fool voters into believing they support an individual RKBA?


Certainly hunting and gun ownership are NOT part of the Siveira opinion's description of what is protected under the Collective Rights theory of the second amendment, but those are what Silveira ascribes to the individual rights interpretation as someone as familiar with that opinion as yourself must surely know.

[MrBenchley]

93. Of course not, hans....

I said I was a liberal, not a freeper idiot with a gun fetish.

"are you going to keep spreading the same crap the NRA is spreading"
Gee, who is it again trying to pretend the Second Amendment isn't collective rights, as the court have ruled again and again and again,? It isn't Kerry, it isn't Edwards, it isn't the platform, it isn't me, it isn't Carolyn McCarthy, it isn't Bill Clnitno, it isn't Dianne Feinstein, it isn't Chuck Schumer, it isn't John Lewis, it isn't the NAACP, it isn't the ACLU, it isn't Hillary Clinton, it isn't Barney Frank, it isn't Molly Ivins, it isn't Barack Obama....oh yeah...it's THESE guys...

[hansberrym]

99. I see that you are going to keep spreading the same crap as the NRA.

You said:
Gee, who is it again trying to pretend the Second Amendment isn't collective rights, as the court have ruled again and again and again,? It isn't Kerry, it isn't Edwards, it isn't the platform.
(end quote)


BUT AS YOU WELL KNOW, The courts adhering to the Collective Rights theory have ruled again and again and again that the second amendmnt has nothing to do with hunting or gun ownership. See below from Silveira.

The statements of Kerry, Edwards, and the party platform are not ambiguous as YOU and the NRA would have voters believe.


Kerry/Edwards have explicitly stated for the record that they believe the second amendment does protect hunting and gun ownership. Therefor, without the Lies and Spin of the NRA concerning the platform, Kerry/Edwards' stated view of the second amendment is compatible with ONLY the individual rights interpretation.



From Silveira:
There are three principal schools of thought that form the basis for the debate.

The first, which we will refer to as the “traditional individual rights” model, holds that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation. This view, urged by the NRA and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a prolific cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 227 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002).

The second view, a variant of the first, we will refer to as the “limited individual rights” model. Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.8


The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the “collective rights” model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.



Mike

[hansberrym]

100. Perhaps you can show how Kerry's statements are compatible with...

the collective rights interpretation.


You can't. So please stop spreading NRA talking points.

[MrBenchley]

101. Peddle it walking, hans....

[hansberrym]

103. You can't. So please stop spreading NRA talking points. (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

105. You first, hans...

[library_max]

112. Politician does not equal judge. They are not the same thing.

If Kerry or Edwards or any other prominent Democrat says anything explicitly condemning the Silveira decision, I'm sure you'll let us know. In the meanwhile, the language of politics is not the language of law. The fact that Edwards referred to a Second Amendment RKBA doesn't mean that there is one. It just means that he and Kerry have no immediate plans to push gun control.

[MrBenchley]

113. I believe what enrages hans

is that when gun owners see Kerry and Edwards speak rationally about guns but hear the NRA gibbering and trying to pretend that the Democrats want to confiscate guns, they will rightfully conclude that the NRA are the lying fuckwits we already know they are.

"he and Kerry have no immediate plans to push gun control"
I think what the voters want most to hear about are plans to deal with the nation at orange alert, the economy going down the toilet, health care a national catastrophe amd the Iraq quagmire becoming more of a disaster every day. And Kerry is excellent plans for those, and he's pro-gun control. Hence this lie that it is "gun control advocates" somehow disgruntled with the ticket.

Meanwhile the Chimp's support is dwindling...and he needs to energize the far right wing loonies.

[MrBenchley]

88. By the way, pro gun groups are still near-hysterical with rage

and gun control organizations and advocate seem pretty satsified...

Another RKBA lie shot down...try to contain your surprise, everybody...

[MrBenchley]

89. Currently the front page of the NRA website

links to an idiotic essay by right wing shitheel David Horowitz bitching about how awful it is that anyone dare mention that this cowardly drunk in the Oval Office lied...

They also want gun loonies to give their automobiles to the NRA...guess if you're dumb enough to believe pResident Fuckwit didn't lie, or that David Horowitz isn't scum, you're dumb enough to give Wayne LaPierre your car...

And remember, the RKBAers' claim that gun control advocates are upset with Kerry-Edwards turned out to be utter bullshit...

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Paladin]

94. Gee, That's Nice

Since you're suddenly so happy with how things are going, I guess we can look forward to you pro-gun "Democrats" heaping as much scorn on Dubya/Cheney/Ashcroft as you have previously directed at Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Gore, and....let me think here a moment...oh, yeah, the Democratic Party Platform.

[MrBenchley]

97. Are you kidding?

They've already started a thread saying Kerry is as bad as AshKKKroft on civil iberties...

Meanwhile try and find ANYTHING our "pro gun democrats" have ever said against Republicans....

[MrBenchley]

102. By the way, paladin, you'll notice not a single word of outrage

from our "pro gun democrats" at the lies and horseshit being expressed by glocksuckers all over the web....

They're outraged only that anybody dared notice what the gun nuts were saying about Democrats...

[hansberrym]

104. Only you would consider calling someone a liar as high praise.

(from my earlier post)
Kerry/Edwards have explicitly stated for the record that they believe the second amendment does protect hunting and gun ownership. Therefor, without the Lies and Spin of the NRA concerning the platform, Kerry/Edwards' stated view of the second amendment is compatible with ONLY the individual rights interpretation.
(end quote)


Pointing out the lies of the NRA, and labeling them as LIES, regarding Kerry's stance on the second amendment ought to demonstrate outrage and disgust, but then you think "fooling people" is some sort of artform to be admired.

On the other hand, you agree with the NRA and are saying that Kerry/Edwards are only supporting collective rights, then offer figurative pats-on-the-back for their supposded "artful dodging".

[MrBenchley]

106. As it happens, seems Paladin does too, hans...

"Pointing out the lies of the NRA"
Foremost of which is that the Second Amendment means something it plainly does not.

One has to wonder why hans feels compelled to argue this crap to somebody who is supporting the ticket and not to those who are not....or maybe the reason is so simple as to seem silly.

[hansberrym]

107. One has to wonder why someone who claims to be supporting..

the ticket, is at the same time saying that Kerry, Edwards, and the platform are only trying to fool people into voting for them. Why
are you spreading NRA talking points?

The NRA is also saying that Kerry/Edwards do not really support the individual RKBA, though the statements make by Kerry and Edwards are unambiguously directed to individual RKBA.


I do not believe that you mean the ticket any harm, I believe you are motivated by denial. But you are doing the party harm by claiming that they are lying to get votes.


The party has turned its back on the collective rights crap as evidenced by the statemnts made on the record. Get over it, and get on board.

[MrBenchley]

109. Feel free to wonder, hans....

But "individual rights" is a flat out lie by the NRA and the gun lobby....and the courts have shown that over and over and over and over.

[MrBenchley]

96. Wow...talk about denial...

Call me if you ever get near reality, hans....

[MrBenchley]

110. By the way, the fuckwits at the NRA

continue to attack the ticket this AM...while the racist nitwits at the GOA are calling far right wing fuckwit Tom Coburn a "champion" and trying to scare up dough to wedge him back into the Senate, where they have "little hope."

However, you too can alertt burglars tthat they can break in and steal your guns by putting up an NRA yard sign....

[Wickerman]

114. locking this flamefest

my apologies to all gungeonites for allowing it to rage for as long as it has.