The tide is turning...

[Van23]

in our direction, my pro-Second Amendment brothers and sisters!! I've updated my page, www.liberalswithguns.com

Check out the new essay on the background page by my friend at Revolutionaryworker.com!

[CO Liberal]

1. What The World Needs

More mindless crap.

[villager]

2. yes, guns have been so hard to get before now!

Congrats on your efforts to make weapons even more readily available than before!

[Buster43]

31. I make

guns available to anyone who wants them, legally. I have a huge collection and lately I have been paring them down. I just closed a deal on two of them this morning.

Kudos to you and your new site.

[Van23]

45. Thank You!!

[Is It Fascism Yet]

59. weapons used in crimes are usually purchased illegally anyway

so what do you need more gun laws for?

[MatrixEscape]

3. WTF?

Where are you going with this? Just how does it relate to our political struggle? Why would you post this publically?

While I am okay about gun ownership in a responsible way, I can only infer that you are on some agressive track here. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

I think any intelligent Liberal knows that we are not in the musket days when the only thing more dangerous than a gun was a cannon and being outflanked. What is value of being "armed" with anything but knowledge and determination right now?

I don't see guns as being relevant, other than the arugments about control and such. Otherwise, anybody dreaming about other intentions should take a look at the kind of tools and technology that the Police State has now. It's amazing.

I think of the gun promoters within this context as more Right-wing and ready to do something rash because "violence" will solve it.

[Van23]

10. I suggest you read

"Pacifism as Pathology" by Ward Churchill. NO successful progressive political struggle has been accomplished without the use of arms--not even Gandhi's "non-violent" revolt in India or the civil rights movement here at home. Churchill explains this quite well in his book. As for myself, I'm merely advocating collective self-defense--nothing more.

Keep packin'!


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

[MatrixEscape]

15. Consider my response

as a generously subtle call for public discretion in a political forum, not a declaration of pacifism on my part.

I am fully aware of what you relate, but there is a process and a progression to transformation that follows certain steps and cues over time. I am just not so sure that calling attention to one's self concerning the use of arms in poltical struggles is prudent. DU does not seem to be the right place for that, either.

I would refer you to the circumstances and reactions in relation to Dr. King's efforts. I hope that will suffice.

For now, the solidarity, communcation, and sharing of ideas here is a powerful resource to be utilized.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

60. if you don't see an armed populace as being relevant

then you are not seeing the forest for the trees. Disarming the populace is invariably the first order of business for any new fledgling tyranny. Yes, an armed populace is still relevant in modern times, witness Afganistan, where the first act of the Taliban was to disarm the populace, thereby plunging them into instant and complete oppression. You can't really oppress them completely, if they are armed. Yes, you could drop bombs on the populace, but, that would piss everybody off too much, would result in anarchy, because, the national guard will only kill a limited number of their own kin before they say, "wait a min, that was my cousin lying down under this tank, and I am not driving over him!"

[Van23]

67. Some are finally waking up...

and seeing that crime has economic causes. Trying to stop violent crime by banning guns is like trying to stop drug abuse by keeping drugs out of the country. And we see how effective that has been!

[Union Thug]

72. I agree.

With rare exceptions (organically affected individuals, etc) I think that our first order of business in addressing crime is in addressing economic justice. The rest, banning guns, the 'war on drugs', etc. does nothing to counter our social problems.

[Wickerman]

4. Wow, Gary Kleck, a liberal

whoddya thunk it?

[Van23]

12. You are correct

Gary Kleck is a liberal. He also sees through the emotional anti-gun rhetoric of so many of his fellow liberals.

See http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

[DoNotRefill]

19. Cottrol is a long-term Liberal....

who is also anti-gun control.

[don954]

5. good thing

Their are MILLIONS of one issue voters who vote on the gun issues that side with the right only because of this. If we lightened up a bit on this issue, we won’t be compromising our core beliefs (such as the right to choose abortion) but will gain some 5-10% more voters. I know many people in Texas whose core beliefs are Dem but vote republican due to this one stupid issue.

[Van23]

11. That's for sure!!

Owning a gun is a fundamental right--just as much of a right as being able to practice a religion of your choice and freedom of speech.

[Paladin]

21. Got News For You, Don

The right to choose abortion is currently under attack---here in DU and elsewhere--- by groups of "good Democrats" who, just like you gun-centric self-proclaimed Democrats, are claiming to only have the best interests of the party in mind. Next up: demands that we walk away from our support of gay rights, so we can rake in a few votes from the homophobes. Let's hear it for "core beliefs"........

[Van23]

22. You are wrong..

Abortion is a right. So is gun ownwership. We want to give gay people the same rights heterosexuals have. As a pro-2nd Amendment leftists, I want to PRESERVE our rights, not take them away. This includes my right to own a gun.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. The planet with the most guns wins.... not. n/t

[GetTheRightVote]

7. I do not mind responsible gun ownership and it would bring more over

to the Demos side as well, we should be tolerant of all issues, we are Democratics aren't we.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. Yes... responsible gun ownership... but not this.. not ever....

Funny how silent Mr. Ashcroft was on this issue... funny indeed. I do realize that you said "responsible gun ownership".

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2001833051_texasterror09.html
From that lucky break, federal officials believe they might have uncovered one of the most audacious domestic-terrorism plots since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Starting with a single piece of mail, investigators discovered an enormous cache of weapons in the East Texas town of Noonday, including the makings of a sophisticated sodium-cyanide bomb capable of killing thousands.

Three people — William Krar, a small-time arms dealer with connections to white supremacists; Krar's common-law wife, Judith L. Bruey; and Edward S. Feltus, the man who was supposed to have received the forged documents — pleaded guilty in the case in November. They are being held in a Tyler, Texas, detention facility and are scheduled to appear before a federal judge for sentencing next month.

[Van23]

9. Yeah...

and gun control has a proven record of just being SO effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals! (Major sarchasm here!)

[villager]

14. and, of course, disseminating arms has resulted in so little

gun violence here! Let's just all pack and draw down on each other!

[Van23]

16. Guns save lives!!

Millions of crimes are nipped in the bud each year in the US with the use of or threat of the use of a firearm. The cops can't protect you. They can only respond to you after the crime has been committed.

Hitler loved gun control! So did Pinochet, Stalin, and the Klan after reconstruction--for blacks of course, not for them.

[TX-RAT]

29. Got anything to back that up?

(Millions of crimes are nipped in the bud each year in the US with the use of or threat of the use of a firearm)

[Van23]

38. Yup....

Read "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out" edited by Don Kates. Or "Armed" by Gary Kleck.

I could quote long passages from either book to back it up, but I'd get in trouble with the moderator about copyright laws. Read them yourself.

[iverglas]

40. and ya talk about yr close-minded

Read "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out" edited by Don Kates. Or "Armed" by Gary Kleck.

And what, pray, might you have read in the way of critiques of those tracts, or analyses that reach somewhat different conclusions?

Surely you have considered such critiques and analyses carefully, being the open-minded chappy you undoubtedly are. Perhaps you can even direct us to some you are familiar with, and explain what you found wanting in them, to demonstrate that you did not reject them out-of-hand like. You wouldn't want anyone to suspect that you weren't being a proper liberal about it all, would you?

And surely you realize that an assertion that "x" backs up a statement, by someone who is fully aware that "x" is not revealed truth and in fact has been cogently characterized as deeply flawed, just doesn't get you much of anywhere, or get the public, in a democracy, in which the sincere and transparent discussion of policy positions is crucial to the success of the democratic project of the society, any farther.

If you ask for something to back up my assertion that the moon is made of green cheese, and I say "Mother Goose; read it yourself", I shall be expecting you to accept the proven truth of my statement forthwith, you know.

[Van23]

42. I used to be a member of Gun Control, Inc.

Now called the Brady Campaign...or something like that. I've also read Josh Sugarmann's "Every Handgun Is Aimed At You"-- a very anti-gun piece.

I used to believe in gun control. I no longer do for these reasons:

1. It's unconstitutional;
2. It's ineffective. Millions of law abiding citizens own guns. Banning them would make criminals out of all of us gun owners. How are you going to confiscate these guns? Expand the power of the police and shred the bill of rights even more than has been done during the past 4 years?
3. You obviously have never been a victim of violent crime. The cops can't protect you if you are attacked. They can only respond to a person after the crime has been committed. I have a legal and moral right to defend myself. Everyone does.
4. Gun ownership by citizens is the best way to prevent tyrannical government. To assume that a government will not fire on it's unarmed citizens because it will recognize the moral superiority of the unarmed and bow before them with respect is idiocy and not supported by even a cursory study of history.

It's quaint actually, how so many liberals expect the courts to hand them everything on a silver platter without a fight. That's the reason why we keep losing. We arrogantly assume that certain constitutional provisions aren't "good enough" or "necessary" for this day and age. The fact is, some things never change. Tyrannical government is one--and the use of arms for protection against such tyranny is another.

[iverglas]

46. wowee

I used to be a member of Gun Control, Inc.
Now called the Brady Campaign...or something like that. I've also read Josh Sugarmann's "Every Handgun Is Aimed At You"-- a very anti-gun piece.

And this is a response to my question ...

And what, pray, might you have read in the way of critiques of <the Kates and Kleck> tracts, or analyses that reach somewhat different conclusions?

... how???

My goodness. You've read an article. An article that, may I assume, had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of the Kates and Kleck tracts?

I used to believe in gun control. I no longer do for these reasons:
- <statement of opinion>
- <unsupported allegation of fact followed by apparently unrelated, apparently rhetorical questions>
- <false allegation of fact> (gosh, wasn't I just asking in another post for the facts on which you based your unpleasant characterization of me? and haven't you just gone a long way toward demonstrating that it is based on false assumptions and not much else?)
- <statement of opinion, followed by further statement of opinion apparently offered as authority for the opinion stated>

Call 'em reasons ... call 'em a complete absence of evidence of even minimal consideration of other viewpoints before dismissing them and choosing the view that serves one's interests ... whatever.

I'd be impressed, if this were a grade ten class.

It's quaint actually, how so many liberals expect the courts to hand them everything on a silver platter without a fight. That's the reason why we keep losing.

Uh ... who "we", <insert term of endearment of your choice>?

I've got same-sex marriage. I've got free abortion on demand without restriction or interference. I've got awards of damages against police services that fail in their duty to protect vulnerable members of the public. I've got freedom of speech that you can only dream about. (You wanna know how close I and quite a lot of loud and angry and unhappy people were to George W. Bush just a short while ago? Closer than you'll ever get, chum.) I've got a criminal justice system where not only the death penalty, but cruel and unusual punishments like mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession and three-strikes laws will never see daylight. I've got an electoral system in which everyone may vote, and no one is disenfranchised because of irrelevant and systemicly discriminatory factors like criminal convictions -- and in which all the votes actually get counted. I've got a whole lot of rights that you've never even heard of, and that my courts have been instrumental in developing and upholding. I haven't lost much of anything recently.

You've got guns.

Hope they keep you warm, and, oh, get you some health care. They haven't accomplished much by way of democratizing your electoral system, as far as I can see. But hey, you keep saying they will. Some day ...

[Van23]

48. Sugarmann's

is a book, not an article.

As far as my assertion about the constitutionality of gun control, yeah..it's an opinion. By your logic, all constitutional decisions are. Therefore, is constitutionality merely a matter of opinion? Sounds nihilistic to me. Also if guns are to be banned, I don't see how questions about the cops and the bill of rights are "unrelated"! These questions seem pretty apropos to me! As far as my characterization of you, you are anti- 2nd Amendment. You said so yourself. Therefore, I'm correct.

As far as asking if you've ever been the victim of a violent attack, please enlighten me! Don't just accuse me of knowing nothing about you.

You seem to be engaged in fallacious reasoning. You've got all that stuff where you live--Canada, I presume. Whether I want the things you mention or not (BTW: I do) is irrelevant in this context. I don't know why you bring them up. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

As far as Kleck's and Kates' research goes, even Marvin Wolfgang--world famous criminologist and gun control advocate - couldn't fault their methodology. If you want, I'll cite the exact reference for you. Maybe you'll actually do your own reading.

Also, if you can suggest a way to confiscate the millions of guns in private hands or provide philosophical justification for disallowing self-defense, believe me--I'm willing to listen!!

Finally, I never said anything about guns "getting us health care" or anything of the sort. Who's the one making unfounded assumptions now?

[iverglas]

49. guess I'll be needing an explanation

You seem to be engaged in fallacious reasoning. You've got all that stuff where you live--Canada, I presume. Whether I want the things you mention or not (BTW: I do) is irrelevant in this context. I don't know why you bring them up. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Well, my friend, you're the one who said (I underline the bits that are causing me difficulty when I try to understand what you are now saying):

It's quaint actually, how so many liberals expect the courts to hand them everything on a silver platter without a fight. That's the reason why we keep losing.

Do you want to explain what you WERE talking about?

I'm sure you've heard the expression "fallacious reasoning" used in a sentence, but you don't seem to have figured out what it means.

You berated liberals for expecting the courts to hand them "everything" (?) on a silver platter, and stated that "that" (?) was the reason "we" kept losing. And, um, keep losing *what*?

While Canadians don't quite expect the courts to hand us anything on a silver platter -- after all, one has to go to a court and persuade it of what one wants -- we haven't kept losing. We haven't lost hardly anything. One of the things we won quite recently was the entitlement of the same-sex common-law spouses of deceased contributors to the Canada Pension Plan (like your social security) to receive survivor pension benefits, back-dated to the date the extended equality guarantees in the Canadian constitution took effect (1985) -- rather than to 1997 as the government had enacted already. May your troubles all be little ones, eh? Like I said; rights you ain't even heard of.

So anyhow, what's this "everything" that the courts aren't going to hand "us" on a silver platter? What, exactly, about my response to your claim in that respect was "fallacious reasoning"?

You made a statement; I offered facts that demonstrate that it is not a universally true statement, at least, and that I offered as a reasonable basis for rejecting it even as a true statement about some more particular circumstance. If Canadian courts can uphold individual rights and freedoms as they do (and as a huge majority of Canadians state that they trust them, the most, to do), why would one think that USAmerican courts cannot do the same? Aren't you the land of the free?

If the things I mentioned -- things that are dear to the hearts of most liberals -- were "irrelevant", what the hell was this "everything" that you alleged the courts would not be handing over to liberals on a silver platter??


As far as my assertion about the constitutionality of gun control, yeah..it's an opinion. By your logic, all constitutional decisions are. Therefore, is constitutionality merely a matter of opinion?

Scusi? I was talking about the statement of your opinion, not about constitutional decisions.

Certainly constitutional decisions (i.e. of the courts) are opinions. That they are the opinions of bodies whose opinions are authoritative, i.e. must be given effect, makes them somewhat different, in terms of their effect. It is still possible that there are different opinions that would be "better", in the sense of more consistent with the broadly accepted premises to be considered in making a decision.

If your claim that firearms control is unconstitutional were supported by some actual constitutional decisions, it would be a "good" opinion in so far as it would be a statement of fact, as a statement of the authoritative opinion in the matter, at least to the extent that it mirrored those authoritative decisions. Your problem is that your claim is NOT so supported, I'm sure you see. So it's just a bald opinion, an unsupported claim, evidently not based on broadly accepted premises, let alone any authoritative opinion, and made without even any facts or argument in support to demonstrate that it is "better" than the authoritative opinion.

Talk about yer fallacious reasoning.

I don't like gun control.
Therefore gun control is unconstitutional.

That's what I heard. And that wouldn't normally be dignified by calling it "reasoning".


As far as Kleck's and Kates' research goes, even Marvin Wolfgang--world famous criminologist and gun control advocate - couldn't fault their methodology.

We're just not answering the question, are we?

Here it is again -- I'll underline the bits you might be missing:

And what, pray, might you have read in the way of critiques of those tracts, or analyses that reach somewhat different conclusions?

Despite my repeated attempts to learn the answer, you have said nothing. I'm feeling fairly confident in interpreting this as you answering "nothing".

You could always say "nothing, because there aren't any". Except that I think there are.

So you could say "nothing, because I don't want to", or "nothing, because I don't have time". In the first case, you'd look kinda like someone who dismisses different points of view out of hand. And in the second, you'd look kinda like someone who does not listen to different points of view before coming to a decision.

I am having visions of shoes that fit, and pots saying things that ricochet.


Maybe you'll actually do your own reading.

Maybe you'll someday demonstrate a modicum of respect for people who disagree with you, kinda the way you apparently think a liberal oughta do.

I won't be holding my breath.

[Van23]

53. This is a joke, right?

Little did I know I'd be expected to defend myself with Wittgensteinian precision. I thought this was a forum for informal musings about politics.

This is really getting tedious. In the interest of brevity, and to keep other DUers from succumbing to narcolepsy, I'll be as brief as possible.

1."And what, pray, might you have read in the way of critiques of those tracts, or analyses that reach somewhat different conclusions?"


Again, they are books--not "tracts." The only critique of any length I know of is Philip J. Cook's "Guns In America." And, yes, I DID read it. I'm just going to list one of the central problems I found with the book. You're not paying me to do research for you, and DU has rules about posting copyrighted stuff.

Cook claims that Kleck "inflates" his estimate that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times in the US. What's Cook's estimate of defensive gun use? "Only" 82,000 times per year in the US. Personally, I think Cook is full of BS..but again, I'm not being paid to do research here.

2. "If your claim that firearms control is unconstitutional were supported by some actual constitutional decisions, it would be a "good" opinion in so far as it would be a statement of fact"

"I don't like gun control.
Therefore gun control is unconstitutional.

That's what I heard."

I'm sorry that's what you heard. Unfortunately, that's not what I SAID.

Ahem...I have an MA in philosophy with a minor in constitutional law. I know a little bit about this. Not just the Second Amendment, but the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth as well. I also know a bit about patent law and incorporation theory.

My opinion isn't supported? Try US v. Miller (1939) in which the court held that the Second Amendment DOES give American citizens the right to keep and bear arms as long as the weapons in consideration are "militia-type"--ie, rifles, shotguns, and handguns. The Court in this case ruled that weapons used solely for criminal activity--like sawed off shotguns--are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Also check out US v. Verdugo-Urquidez regarding what the Second Amendment means by "the people."

I've read LOTS of scholars on this subject--Frankfurter, Ely, Tribe, Dworkin, Bork, Black, Schwartz..plus law journal articles out the yin-yang. Have you?


3. "It's quaint actually, how so many liberals expect the courts to hand them everything on a silver platter without a fight. That's the reason why we keep losing."

I admit I should have been more clear about this. You were right to ask for clarification. However, you then began spouting all that stuff about Canada. I wasn't talking about Canada. I was talking about liberals in the United States and gun control in the United States.

I'll admit I don't have the resources to hire a polling firm to give you an exact determination of what I meant by "we" liberals. I used the term collectively--as is the nature of the word. I assume you meant the same thing when you referred to "we" Canadians. If that's not what you meant, I'm glad you're the only person on DU who doesn't engage in occasional political hyperbole. I'm also impressed that you found a wholly novel way to use the word "we".

4."You made a statement; I offered facts that demonstrate that it is not a universally true statement, at least, and that I offered as a reasonable basis for rejecting it even as a true statement about some more particular circumstance."

I have a degree in philosophy, so I damn well know what a fallacious argument is. I made a statement about the United States. YOU tried to refute it by offering facts not about the US, but about Canada. Then you topped it of by saying "You have guns." Period. Yeah, right..that's all we have.

a. Canada has health care and strong gun control; b. The US has weak gun controls and lousy health care c. Therefore, weak gun controls create lousy health care in the US.

"You've got guns.

Hope they keep you warm, and, oh, get you some health care."

Brilliant.

5. "If Canadian courts can uphold individual rights and freedoms as they do (and as a huge majority of Canadians state that they trust them, the most, to do), why would one think that USAmerican courts cannot do the same?"

That's like asking "If French courts can uphold individual rights and freedoms as they do, why would one think that the Cambodian courts cannot do the same?" Who the hell knows? The two contexts aren't related.

6."And, um, keep losing *what*?"

Civil liberties due to the Patriot Act; abortion rights; habeas corpus; etc. etc.

7. Also, if you can suggest a way to confiscate the millions of guns in private hands or provide philosophical justification for disallowing self-defense, believe me--I'm willing to listen!!"


I can't wait to hear your plan for this!

8. "As far as asking if you've ever been the victim of a violent attack, please enlighten me! Don't just accuse me of knowing nothing about you."

Somehow, I don't think I'm going to get an answer to this. If the answer is no, let's hear your moral condemnation of those who have used firearms in a self-defense situation. This is another thing I can't wait to hear.

This is the last time I will debate this stuff with you in this forum. If you want to debate this more, you'll have to drop me an e-mail though my web site. But remember, I'm going to hold you to your own exacting standards! I want any position you take to be cited and cross-referenced, with both pros and cons presented.

[Wickerman]

55. Do a google on David Hemenway

to see a a Harvard professor's take on the writings of Kleck.

[Romulus]

56. imagine

the liberal freedoms we could have here in the US if nebulously-worded "stronger gun control" wasn't made "part-and-parcel" of the liberal freedom package, thus dooming it to oblivion.

[TX-RAT]

51. I was expecting millions of police reports

Maybe some statistics to back up your statement. All i get is read a book or article, give me a brake. If you don't have anything to back up your statement, just say NO.

[DoNotRefill]

18. Well, considering how it's the RWers that are armed....

don't you think it might be a little bit more effective if we at least had a parity of arms?

Your position relies on the basic decency of the RWers, that they will not shoot us down because we are unarmed. I, for one, don't think that's a very prudent course of action. That's kind of like telling a robber/rapist "Here, let me help you handcuff me, so that you will have nothing to fear from me."

[arkie dem]

20. Great Reply...!!!

[Van23]

23. That's for sure!

These RWs are theocratic fascists who will not hesitate to shoot us if they feel it will usher in the Second Coming. To suggest that we leftists disarm is nihilistic and strategically stupid.

[CO Liberal]

61. And People Like You....

...have been such an effective wedge within the Democratic Party.

[Van23]

66. We're working on it.

Dems will start winning again when rich, white liberals realize that we ALL have the right to defend ourselves--even though we all can't afford to hire private armed bodyguards, like the Barbra Streisands and the Ted Kennedys of the world.

Leftists should be opposed to any and all laws that discriminate against poor people. Rich people will always be able to buy guns, regardless of the law. Rich people will always be able to have abortions, regardless of the law. Rich people will always be able to buy drugs, regardless of the law.

Keep guns legal for all law-abiding citizens, regardless of income. Keep abortion safe and legal for all, regardless of income. Legalize drugs and focus on rehabilitation for anyone who becomes addicted, regardless of income.

[CO Liberal]

77. Using That "Logic"....

...Mercedes-Benz discriminates against poor people because they can't afford a Mercedes.

Don't give me that "compassion for the poor" crap. That's just another gun lobby lie - it's bullshit, and YOU KNOW IT.

[Van23]

13. We should be!

Openness to other ideas is the very definition of the term "liberal."

[villager]

25. but where do you draw the line?

lasers? anti-tank guns? missile launchers? we can't arm our way out of the effects of violence -- it's like buying into the argument that all those years of nuclear brinksmanship were good for us, because "we were armed," etc.

This is separate from being wary of RWers -- at some point, you have to exert collective societal control over arms, for the safety of everyone.

Just common sense, really.

[Van23]

28. All serious constitutional scholarship

agrees that there is a difference between offensive weapons (like nuclear bombs and tanks and b-52s) and defensive militia weaponry like rifles and handguns. I saw Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, on Crossfire once, and even he said that the constitution does NOT grant citizens the right to own tanks, flamethrowers, nuclear devices, etc.

[villager]

32. just, you know, machine guns, and such

that's okay, though. Just for self-defense.

[Van23]

37. Absolutely

The Second Amendment does grant me the right to own a machine gun.

[villager]

52. no further questions, your honor

n/t

[Columbia]

58. Recognizes

Not grants. :)

[CO Liberal]

64. I've Seen Larry Pratt, Too

He's kust another worthless asshole, just like Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent.

[benEzra]

74. "but where do you draw the line"

Leave the line of demarcation right where it's currently drawn by the National Firearms Act of 1934--heavy restrictions on all automatic weapons, burst-mode weapons, firearms over .50 caliber (except shotguns), cut-down rifles and shotguns, disguised firearms (cell phone guns, cane guns), explosives, and ordnance. Plus armor-piercing handgun ammunition prohibited, hypothetical X-ray-transparent guns prohibited, etc.

Everything else legal (regardless of cosmetics like how the stock is shaped), but with background checks for purchase, possession by criminals prohibited, strict controls on the use of lethal force (i.e., only in justified self-defense), and license required to carry as determined at the state level.

That's current law.

The prohibitionists really crossed the line in 1994 when they tried to redraw this line and ban all firearms holding over 10 rounds, or rifles with the stock shaped a certain way. Leave the line where it is and we gun owners will be pretty happy.:)

[Paladin]

75. Yeah, Right

The Gun Dungeon just overflows every day with expressions of how happy RKBA militants are with the present state of gun laws in this country.....

[benEzra]

76. Why not tolerance for gun owners?

Well, I have to say I've never been called a "militant" before.:) (Being the 5'6" thirtysomething geek that I am...)

But from an objective standpoint, if 65 to 80 million voters (mostly nonhunters) lawfully own and use guns, and it is very important to us to keep them--whether or not you agree with us on that, don't you think it might be a good idea to try to accomodate us in the "tent," as it were?

Since the national party adopted expanded gun prohibition as a pet issue in the late '80s/early '90s, they have succeeded in driving lots of gun owners to the Republicans. In my state of NC this election, a large majority of the population voted for Democrat Mike Easley (NRA endorsed and "A" rated), but the Kerry/Edwards ticket lost the state by as large a margin, even though Edwards is from NC. Lots of Democrats won at the state level, but Erskine Bowles (outspoken advocate of expanded gun prohibition) lost to a no-name republican. And of course a third or more of Democrats own guns...

Is expanded gun prohibition really the most important plank in the platform?

[CO Liberal]

79. A "Pet Issue"???

Bullshit.

Nowhere in the party platform does it advocate "gun prohibition".. Never has - never will.

You really need to read the Party Playform, and stop accepting the lies and bnullshit spread by the pro-gun forces (such as the Nute Ruining America) as facts. They lie constantly about us, and I personally would not associate with such liars.

[benEzra]

80. I said EXPANDED gun prohibition...

such as banning all firearms that hold over 10 rounds, or all rifles with the stock shaped a certain way. The national party is not calling for ABSOLUTE gun prohibition--they are OK with the hunting minority owning traditional-looking hunting guns, for example--but they ARE calling for vastly expanded prohibitions of various nonhunting-style guns.

Yes, that IS in the platform--prohibition of anything the anti-gun lobby has tagged with the scary label "assault weapon" (meaning my wife's 15-round Glock handgun, or my Ruger mini-14. And since the vast majority of gun owners are nonhunters, this is a problem.

BTW, I get most of my legislative info from thomas.loc.gov. If you get a chance, look up S.1431 (from last session) sometime (the actual bill, not the sugarcoated summary), and the list of cosponsors. That (draconian) bill came back to haunt the party in a bad way last November...

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[CO Liberal]

83. And It Doesn't Change The Fact....

...that there are some people in this country (felons, the mentally ill, and those with personal histories of violence toward others) who should not have access to ANY guns, and some guns (such as those covered by the '94 AWB) that have no place in general circulation. I'm sorry that your gun lust has clouded your reasoning.

[benEzra]

84. I agree with you

on your first point. And this situation is already covered by current law, BTW.

As far as your second point, what do you believe the "assault weapons ban" covered? Military weapons like AK-47's and Uzi's, or low-powered civilian-only weapons with nontraditional styling that are far less lethal than hunting weapons?

If you believe that automatic weapons such as military AK-47's should be restricted, I agree with you. But if that is your position, you are arguing for the National Firearms Act, not the "assault weapons ban."

FWIW, the guns most affected by the AWB were full-size defensive handguns like those police carry.

[CO Liberal]

85. My Basic Position is This

If the NRA favors something, I oppose it.

And if someone agrees with the NRA's position on anything, I oppose them.

[benEzra]

86. Let's see, the NRA supports...

strict restrictions on automatic weapons, as codified in the National Firearms Act. Do you oppose that, or agree? (For example.) There has to be some common ground somewhere, and I suspect there is a lot more than you realize.

[CO Liberal]

87. And I Suspect....

...that we're gonna get nowhere, because I'm never going to come around to your way of "thinking".

So we might as well drop this right now.

[Billy Ruffian]

89. Interesting way of thinking

That basic position implies that you oppose the instant background check, and safe storage laws, and firearms training, and firearms training for the police.

Oh, and it implies that the USA-PATRIOT Act, too.

[CO Liberal]

91. There Are Some Organizations.....

...that i believe could make the world a better place by closing their doors tomorrow. Thay include the John Birch Society, the Christian Coaltion, Promise Keepers, Focus On The Family, and the Nuts Ruining America.

[slackmaster]

90. That gives the NRA an awful lot of power, does it not?

:shrug:

I prefer to make up my own mind on most issues, especially ones I happen to know a lot about.

[CO Liberal]

99. And I Know a Lot About The NRA

And the fuckoffs in their leadership ranks. if they were to get rid of the assholes like Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent, they might regain some of their long-lost respect.

Until then, they're about as useful as tits on a bull.

[Billy Ruffian]

88. The guns covered by the 94 AWB

were functionally equivalent to non-banned guns.

One example. Colt AR-15 was banned, Ruger Mini-14 was not. Both use the .223 Remington (5.56mm NATO) cartridge, both have detachable box magazines, both are semi-automatic.

Why is it that the AR-15 has no place in general circulation, and the Mini-14 does?

[CO Liberal]

92. If The AWB Was So Ineffective....

...then why did the gun lobby work so hard to kill it? I believe that's more telling than anything else.

[Billy Ruffian]

93. Renewal of the Scary Looking Gun ban was fought

because the SLGB WAS ineffective.

I repeat my question. Why should the AR-15 have been banned, when the Ruger Mini-14 was not?

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[CO Liberal]

97. Maybe I Don't CARE To Answer The Question

I'm not all hung up on specific guns, like some people seem to be. I'm more concerned with keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.

[Billy Ruffian]

100. but you said that there were guns that should not be available

and you expressed dismay that the AWB wasn't renewed.

I've described one banned gun, and one 'allowed' gun.

What is the difference between the two? Why should one of them be allowed when the other is banned?

[benEzra]

94. It was very effective at hassling the LAW-ABIDING...

The AWB drastically raised prices on replacement magazines for full-sized defensive handguns like the Smith and Wesson 5906, Glock 17, Ruger P-89, and the Beretta 92 series--some of the most popular handguns among law-abiding civilian gun owners. (My wife paid over $100 for a 15-round Glock magazine in the late '90s, that otherwise would have retailed for $20.) The AWB also made it a federal felony for me to put a stock that folds for storage on my Ruger mini-14. It required that rifles with ergonomic stocks be sold with fake flash suppressors instead of real ones, and that muzzle brakes be pinned on instead of screwed on. Worse, it institutionalized the concept that hunting guns were the only long guns civilians should be "allowed" to own, and that defensive-style long guns were somehow "evil."

It did NOTHING about gun crime; it was aimed squarely at gun enthusiasts. It shattered the 70-year-old compromise over what is and is not a civilian firearm and attempted to redraw it based on silly distinctions like what a rifle's stock looks like. And since 80% of gun owners are nonhunters and millions of us own handguns or rifles with modern styling, it became EXTREMELY unpopular.

(BTW, the ban did NOT ban any military weapons or automatic weapons. Military AK-47's and Uzi's and M16's were and are already restricted by the National Firearms Act. Nor did it affect rifle magazine capacities to any significant degree, since most over-10-round rifle magazines on the planet were manufactured before 1994 and therefore exempt from the ban.)

The prohibitionists (and the politicians who supported it) dramatically underestimated how unpopular it would be among gun owners. We didn't mind the Brady bill, we are OK with background checks, but messing around in our gun safes made a lot of us politically active. Perhaps the most enduring legacy of the law was the vastly increased market in very small full-power handguns (after all, if a gun is limited to 10 rounds, it might as well be sized for a 10-round magazine), and the huge increase in demand for guns with modern styling (more AR-15-type rifles were sold 1994-2004 than in the previous three decades combined).

I actually bought my civilian "AK" lookalike because of the ban (it is a 2002 model, not affected by the ban because it doesn't have a bayonet lug or muzzle threads).

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

26. can a buy a copy of your dictionary?

Openness to other ideas is the very definition of the term "liberal."

Do the funny eyeglasses come with?

Got any bridges to sell?

Now I think I'll go practise being open to the idea of, oh, genocide.

Perhaps some of us will recall the difference between not prejudiced (a real very definition of "liberal") and unwilling to decide and defend what is good and decent (kind of the antithesis of "liberal").

[Van23]

27. Groan.....

Openness to ideas is necessary before judgments can be made. I'm NOT suggesting that we should NEVER make judgments about anything! What I MEAN is we should listen to different points of view before coming to a decision--not dismissing anything out of hand, like anti-Second Amendment zealots do.

Weighing options is necessary for a balanced world view.

[iverglas]

30. if you know any

... "anti-Second Amendment zealots" who do not "listen to different points of view before coming to a decision" and prefer "dismissing" "different points of view" "out of hand", you be sure to introduce me.

If, on the other hand, you are under some delusion that your ideas are something that anybody hereabouts, or most anybody anywhere, has not heard, let alone not heard over and over and over and become intimately familiar with, and rejected, you may need to, uh, open your mind to the idea that the fact that someone disagrees with you just doesn't make him/her either prejudiced or a zealot of any sort. I'm sure you wouldn't want to look like a narrow-minded self-interested illiberal zealot yourself now, would you?

[Van23]

36. There are a lot of them

on this forum!! You know who you are.

... "anti-Second Amendment zealots" who do not "listen to different points of view before coming to a decision" and prefer "dismissing" "different points of view" "out of hand", you be sure to introduce me.

[iverglas]

39. I do indeed know who I am

There are a lot of <"anti-Second Amendment zealots" who do not "listen to different points of view before coming to a decision" and prefer "dismissing" "different points of view" "out of hand"> on this forum!! You know who you are.

You appear to have been speaking to me. I mean, given that you were replying to my post, and all. The conclusion that a reasonable person might draw is that the pronouns emphasized above refer to the person you were addressing, i.e. moi.

If so, you might want to substantiate your allegation. If not, you might want to tell it to someone whom you might have a chance of snowing.

[Van23]

41. Not just you....

there are several. However, I'm heartened that there seem to be more and more progressives (both DUers and people in my personal leftist/socialist circle) who are finally starting to see gun control as the gimmicky, unconstitutional BS it really is.

[iverglas]

43. well ain't you a cute little fella

"Not just you....
there are several."

So you were saying that I am an "anti-Second Amendment zealot" who does not "listen to different points of view before coming to a decision" and prefers "dismissing" "different points of view" "out of hand".

Now all you need to do is provide some evidence to support your allegation.

I'll be looking forward to it. You needn't produce a complete catalogue. One bit of evidence for each constituent element of the allegation will do nicely.

I'll even give you an admission of facts to start off with. Yup, I'm "anti-Second Amendment". I'm anti- just about anything that's really really badly written and impossible to determine the meaning of to even a basic consensus level. You note that I am not necessarily anti- any particular interpretation of that bit of prose; it's just the bit of prose itself that makes my nose wrinkle. So even though I don't really think that's what you meant, I'll spare us any potential wrangling over what "anti-Second Amendment" means, since that would involve a determination of what the Second Amendment means ...

So that leaves you with:

- zealot
- does not listen to different points of view before coming to a decision
- prefers dismissing different points of view out of hand

and if you don't come up with the necessary, I'm afraid that I'll have to interpret your allegation as a pure personal attack. I mean, I don't think that someone who is a zealot and adopts positions without listening to others' viewpoints and rejects others' viewpoints without giving them due consideration would qualify as a "liberal", or even a Democrat, let alone a progressive, so I kinda feel like I've been slimed.

I will look forward to whatever information about me you have at the ready, so that I may understand the error of my ways and apply appropriate remedies.

I mean, I still wouldn't want to think that you're the kind of zealot who has decided not to listen to my point of view (not to mention not even bothering to know what it is) and has rejected it without giving it any consideration (not to mention without even knowing what it is).

[Van23]

44. See #42

Well, if you do agree with me and stand proudly in support of gun rights, I'll be GLAD to admit I was wrong about you! If not, well, I guess I was correct. Anyone who wants to trash a fundamental provision of the Bill of Rights is a zealot in my book. Sorry if you have a problem with that.

[iverglas]

47. oh look, it's a liberal

Well, if you do agree with me and stand proudly in support of gun rights, I'll be GLAD to admit I was wrong about you!

Funny thing about it is, you didn't say that I did not "stand proudly in support of gun rights".

You said that I was AN ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT ZEALOT WHO DOES NOT LISTEN TO DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW BEFORE COMING TO A DECISION AND PREFERS DISMISSING DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW OUT OF HAND.

Are ya seeing the difference here?

My current interpretation is that you define anyone who disagrees with you as a zealot who refuses to consider others' viewpoints before taking a position and dismisses others' viewpoints without giving them due consideration.

I'm not sure how else I can interpret your present remarks, since you have responded to my request for evidence that I am the creature described in capitals above by stating that if I do agree with you you were wrong about me ... without stating a single fact that you actually know about me, or a single thing that you know about my viewpoint ... leading me to wonder how you could possibly have listened to it and given it due consideration.

My my, that's liberal of you. If I don't agree with you, I am a zealot who won't consider others' viewpoints and dismisses others' viewpoints without due consideration.

Hmm. And you're not. What a topsy-turvey world we seem to have fallen into, eh?

[CO Liberal]

78. Oh - So Now I'm a Zealot!!

:shrug:

Naybe I don't like the idea of people getting shot. And maybe I'm fed up with all the gun rights assholes here in Colorado. You've taken up company with an awful lot of losers, Van23.

[Columbia]

17. Hey Van, have you ever thought about opening up a forum on your site?

I'd volunteer to be a mod. :)

[Van23]

24. Actually, yes.

It's just a cost thing that has prevented me. My current web hosting service won't let me upgrade. I'm thinking about changing hosts when my contract expires this winter.

Thanks for your offer, though! I'll keep it in mind.

[CarinKaryn]

33. How nice. Pic's from Oleg on the front page.

That tell's me all I need to know.

Ever seen his 'nekid chicks with guns' series? He's a real progressive thinker.

Wankers.

[Billy Ruffian]

34. There are a lot of folks from the GLBT community

that would think Oleg is quite progressive.

But you can't see past the guns, it seems.

[iverglas]

35. it may seem that way to you

But you can't see past the guns, it seems.

Me, I couldn't see past the wrench around the woman's nipple, long before I'd seen a firearm anywhere around his site. (I mean, I assume there was a woman there somewhere. You pretty much need a woman to produce his kind o' "art", but most of the body parts seem to be as disposable as the face and brain, for purposes like his.)

Oleg's work is pure misogynist hetero porn, so I couldn't be sure what it would have to do with the glbt community, and neither would the lesbians I know. But you g'head and enjoy your fantasies, whether your personal favourites be sociopolitical or of a less lofty variety.

[iverglas]

50. about that pic

on the home page of your site:



I noted the ILWU banner. I did a google.

http://action.web.ca/home/clccomm/en_readingroom_speeches.shtml?x=56483&AA_EX_Session=697103c348f3d14cf8ac04cf8da1766b

Yeah, that's Canada. A place where unions actually still exist, and still fight for the social and political and economic rights of workers.

Focussing on what is important to workers, therefore means focussing on the issues that are relevant to the vast majority of citizens.

... Yes, labour is supportive of Jack Layton and the NDP -- because that party understands and supports issues important to unions and workers.

But our labour movement must increase the political and economic knowledge of workers from coast to coast to coast.

Unions have to make workplace issues into vote-determining issues so that no party can ignore them.

We hear so much in the media about gun control or same-sex marriage or military spending -- and these are important issues.

But when do we hear anything about inadequate occupational health and safety, about hours of work, about low wages, when do we hear anything about jobs that disappear or about repeated lay-offs or about labour laws that hurt workers?

It just isn't right . . . and we have to fight it!

And we have to set the agenda!

Now, that's not a statement for or against gun control, just a call to put genuine working people's issues on the agenda. It sure ain't a denunciation of gun control, even if Canadian-style gun control, anyhow.

Here ya go; dateline Seattle:

http://www.ibu.org/presidents_report.htm

As we enter the heat of presidential politics this fall it is important to be aggressive. Aggressive as a membership, as a movement, demanding not only of our elected union representatives but also of our elected government representatives that our voice be heard. It is time to put divisive issues like abortion and gun control aside. As blue-collar workers, it is imperative that the membership of the IBU prioritizes involvement in the political process both within the union and without.

Well, I doubt that the union is calling for abortion to be outlawed; so I don't see any basis for concluding that it is calling for gun control to be abandoned.

This ILWU local doesn't seem to have had any difficulty deciding where to put its money:

http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?si=200411&d=7216215&PHPSESSID=25fabe87783f4050ab329fcc6ca1aa10

Party . . . Counts . . . Total . . . % of Overall

Democrat . . . 87 . . . $42,904 . . . 100.00%
Republican . . . 0 . . . . . . . $0 . . . . . 0.00%
Third Party . . . 0 . . . . . . . $0 . . . . . 0.00%

Were all 87 of those Democrats in Hawaii "pro-Second Amendment", do you suppose?

So ... have you asked ILWU how it feels about being a poster child for your crusade?

Me, I tend to think that it would want nothing to do with it -- if not because it opposes what you stand for, simply because it opposes your kind of effort to take the focus off the real issues of concern to real working people.

I should ask you the question occasionally asked of me; got a job?

[Van23]

54. Frankly..

I can't remember where I got this picture. It's irrelevant where I got it. I was trying to convey an idea.

Yes, I do have a job! A full time one with the company I've been with for 6 years.

[CarinKaryn]

57. How irresponsible

You're endorsing and using the work of a person you know nothing about and tnen claiming its ok because you didn't know he was a sexist/racist/whatever.

Nice cop out.

[Van23]

62. No...

The referrence was to the union picture, not the "Gun Control Is Racist" pic.

BTW: The picture is correct. Gun control is racist.

[solinvictus]

63. Classist, too...

The rulers of America fear the prospect of an armed populace, especially of workers. Anyone who believes that in the face of creeping totalitarianism we should give up our firearms should read Solzhenitsyn.

[Van23]

65. Absolutely!

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[left15]

70. Spirit of 1776

Didn't we already kick a tyranny out of this country with firearms owned by citizens?

[arkie dem]

71. We need to clean house again,

too much dirt has been swept under the rug in 228yrs.

Our one party regime needs a wake up call.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[benEzra]

102. The problem is that... (unions & the gun issue)

Here ya go; dateline Seattle:

http://www.ibu.org/presidents_report.htm

"As we enter the heat of presidential politics this fall it is important to be aggressive. Aggressive as a membership, as a movement, demanding not only of our elected union representatives but also of our elected government representatives that our voice be heard. It is time to put divisive issues like abortion and gun control aside. As blue-collar workers, it is imperative that the membership of the IBU prioritizes involvement in the political process both within the union and without."

Well, I doubt that the union is calling for abortion to be outlawed; so I don't see any basis for concluding that it is calling for gun control to be abandoned.

This ILWU local doesn't seem to have had any difficulty deciding where to put its money

The problem is that a lot of union members in pro-gun states own guns (often nonhunting guns) and care about the issue, SO even though 100% of the union money may go to dems, 50% of the union VOTES in a pro-gun state may go to national repubs if the dem is anti-gun--and in the end it's the number of VOTES a candidate gets that counts. Something like EIGHTY PERCENT of union members in Tennessee are gun owners. Bush pulled 50% of union members in West Virginia in 2000, largely over the gun issue, and I suspect you'd see the same in other pro-gun states.

[Union Thug]

73. btw..thanks for the plug..

I need to get in and update revolutionaryworker.com... But again, thanks!!!