Those Democrats who dislike guns for one reason or other need to come to terms with the fact that their consistent anti-gun posturing will have no further effect than that of alienating a lot of gunners whose main (only) reason for voting Republican is the Republicans' pro-gun position.

Anti-gunners need to get used to the idea that there are somewhere between 200 and 300 million guns in the hands of Americans (nobody knows for sure). Even if their fondest hope were realized and government demanded the surrender of all guns, only the law-abiding would comply -- leaving them disarmed and at the mercy of the outlaw population who will not surrender their guns.

The toothpaste is out of the tube where guns are concerned, so there is nothing to accomplish by protesting guns but the loss of possibly millions of votes.

we need to agree to anything to win this one

then, over time, we can fix all the problems, like guns...it surely isnt important enough to lose an election over, i agree with that

As a gun toting liberal, it's a straw man argument. Liberal's are not gonna go against our constitution, we believe in the wisdom of our forefathers, they do not. It's a made up make believe argument meant to divide the parties. Plain and simple. We may need them to take back our gov't. in a time of real injustice. and we don't need rwer's to help us. I am not a member of the NRA, because I don't need them either.

democrats get an unfair rap about the gun issue


there are two things that people can count on


1. abortion will continue to be legal


and
2, no one is coming for anybody's guns

excellent points

There was legislation before the Congress post-Katrina that proposed to say that the gov't had the right to swoop in and take people's legally registered firearms in an "emergency" just as they had during Katrina (illegally).

Obama voted against that.

He literally voted against the very piece of law the gun owners had always been fearing.

He voted NOT to let them "take yer guns away", but to let you, the law-adiding gun owner keep them in accordance with the Second Amendment.

im open to reasonable ownership, stricter laws etc

Like what he said in his speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I was in the Marksmanship Club in college shooting archery and on the gun range, so any of this Liberals hate guns stuff is crap.

I hate irrational gun policy. And that many of the laws ALREADY on the books aren't enforced properly. And moronic parents who bring a gun into the home and then do not monitor it's usage well enough until somebody gets hurt.

But as for Obama and gun ownership? No problem, nothing to see here, move on....

Accordance with the Second Amendment is no comfort. The Second Amendment protects your right to "keep and bear arms (meaning firearms)." A single-shot, bolt action .22 rifle chambered for short ammunition is the one and only firearm which anti-gun legislation could permit you to "keep," so long as you "keep" it in a locked box when you're not "bearing" it to and from a federally supervised target range. And there is nothing in the Second Amendment that entitles you to ammunition for that "arm."

And those who insist the the Democrats are not the gun-grabbers, then who is it that comes up with all the anti-gun legislation, such as the stupid "assault rifle" ban, etc.? Republicans? It's sonsabitches the likes of Charles Schumer and Diana Feinstein! Democrats!

I know of no Republican legislator or President who opposes guns. And that very fact ensures the Republicans many millions of votes in every presidential election.

republicans first priority is to protect their party at all costs if your guns get in the way and they have a say in it, your guns are gone. nothing is more important to them than their power nothing.

Frankly, I'm tired of THIS Democrat being characterized as anti-gun. I like guns. I love shooting guns.

I believe there should be lots of regulations limiting who can carry and where they can carry, and the should be harshly enforced. And I don't give a flying fuck about those who are terrified that the commie hordes flooding into the US will head straight for the registration files to determine which houses they visit first. Call me names for that, but not a name representing something I'm not.

I'm NOT anti-gun. I MAY be safely called "anti gun-nut."

Then amend the Constitution and quit yer whining. Otherwise, be a man and abide by the law.


Which isn't stupid, it's rational. What are you gonna do with a gun like that? Lay down supressing fire against the deadly killer squirrels? No, those are PEOPLE HUNTING GUNS, not sportsman's, or home protection guns. It is RATIONAL to restrict them.


Dianne Feinstein isn't a Democrat.

True. But that circumstance would occur only as part of Liberty's final scene when martial law is declared and a dictator is seated. But as it presently exists the average gunner believes the Republicans are pro-gun while the Democrats favor gun confiscation.

Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. It is what the gunners have been led to believe via the actions of such anti-gun Democrats as Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein, et. al.

Spoken like a Republican with a GED.



You really have no idea what you're talking about. In fact, I believe you are incapable of describing exactly what an "assault rifle" is and how it differs from many ordinary "sporting" rifles.

Regardless of what an assault rifle is, the purpose of the Second Amendment is not to facilitate hunting but to enable a citizen militia to resist oppression. The fantastic notion that a so-called "assault rifle" is for "hunting people" reflects the typical uninformed (ignorant) position of the anti-gun Democrat.


What else do you know?

You've got the NRA's agenda wrong, Mike.

IMHO, they are a lobby for the gun manufacturers, not a lobby for gun owners.

Why do I say this? There are often critical moments where you can see where an organization really stands.

There was a recent bill allowing gun owners to sue gun manufacturers over their products. Who did the NRA side with? Gun manufacturers.

That's the real reason they are such GOP cheerleaders -- they are yet another corporate lobby.

The Democrats are not coming to take away anybody's guns. They are there to regulate guns to ensure that they are used safely, properly, and by people of sound mind and competence to use them without endangering others unnecessarily.

That no more makes them the party of "gun grabbers" than the fact that they support laws to make sure cars are used safely, properly, and by people fit to use them, makes them "car grabbers".

Guns are made for one thing, to kill. I have no use for them. That said, I have no problem with responsible citizens owning them.

When I was in the Army I had to qualify on every weapon I used. I was required to learn the rules of deadly force. And I was periodically tested on those weapons and rules. I think any citizen who chooses to own a fire-arm should be held to at least those minimum standards.

I think citizens should not be allowed to posess or use cop killer bullets {bullets that penetrate protective vests}.

Thirty round ammunition magazines are unnecessary for citizens too.

I think there needs to be stiff penalties for folks who don't secure their guns properly. Kind of like keeping your pitt bull in the yard.

I think gun owners ought to be compelled to carry liability insurance in case of gun injury or death.

That's not too much to ask.

I'm not an NRA member.



Probably so.



And I agree with NRA's position in that litigation. Suing a gun manufacturer because someone is harmed, not by their product but by someone's unlawful/improper use of it, is patently and absurdly wrong! Should Pontiac Motors be sued because some stupid eighteen year-old kid ran a stop sign in his brand new Firebird, hit my niece's car broadside and broke her hip?



Again, probably so. But in the above example I fully agree with their position.



While this might be the fact it is not the common perception, which came about as the result of lobbying efforts by the likes of Sarah Brady and other virulent anti-gunners whose obvious objective is confiscation in accordance with the Australia model.



Such laws have existed for decades so there is absolutely no need for any further legislation where guns are concerned,. Yet opportunistic legislators like Schumer, Feinstein, et. al., have found the issue to be an effective political football to kick around, which they've been doing for years. They seize upon every opportunity, every example of gun-related irrational conduct, to introduce additional restrictions, none of which make any sense but successfully exploit the ignorance and fear of the average anti-gun voter. The only point I'm making is the anti-gun legislators all are Democrats. Their activities are responsible for millions of lost votes and the Republicans are pleased to take advantage of that by assuming a pro-gun posture. (Reagan and Bush being prime examples of this.)

I am a tournament (target) archer. I belong to several archery clubs, the memberships of which are dominated by hunters, most of whom are good, decent, patriotic Americans, all of whom (I've ever met) associate Democrats with repressive gun laws. Whenever I talk politics with them they mainly agree with what I have to say until I try to promote Obama. The issue of gun rights immediately arises, takes precedence over any other consideration and is the prime motivation for their rejection of Democrats.

This perception must be changed to deprive the Right of the advantage it affords.

I and my 4 handguns and 2 long guns agree.

No, the average IDIOT gunowner believes that.

They also believe most of the other shit the Republicans would like them to believe.

Why?

Because they are IDIOTS.

Which means they are going to support Republican (idiot) ideas.

You need to just cut the crap and stick to the basics.

It really works.

Really.

I am a hunter and fisherman, have been since I was a kid. I am also a liberal and agree with you too!

And as an aside....

I would no more go hunting with the likes of Sarah Palin than play in traffic on the Interstate.

As an anti gun liberal let me clear something up. It has always been the Republican scare tactics that when ever we come up with reasonable gun legislation the Republicans go to the sportsmen and scream "Oh They Want To Take Your Guns" bullshit!

There has never been gun legislation that wants to take the guns from legitimate sportsmen. I would ask you, do you need a 50cal to go deer hunting, are automatic weapons really necessary when hunting squirrel? And what the hell do gun owners have against police protection and stronger laws to protect citizens instead of having your grandmother carry a piece wherever she goes to protect herself.

Sen. Obama said it. There is no reason we can't work together to insure that a sportsman in Louisiana can keep his sporting guns and also pass legislation to take automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals. I ask all true sportsmen to work with those of us who would do just that. You want your guns, I want to feel safe without having to carry one, is that too much to ask?

actualy it is relevant because weve already witnessed habeus corpus get in the way of republicans and to them habeus corpus is gone. weve seen the 4th amendment of the constitution get in the way and to republicans the 4th amendment is gone. weve seen the the ban on torture and spying get in their way and to them its gone.

rather than try to change the perception of people like me who are not anti-gun how bout informing republicans of their own parties current trend of assaulting the constitution in which our right to bear arms is a part of. It just astounds me that some republicans are so afraid of having their guns taken away they would lend support to a party that wouldnt hesitate to come and take them away from their guns.

Why?



Why?



Be more specific. How is a gun adequately secured? Provide examples of various situations?



Actually it is because the cost of that kind of liability insurance would be prohibitive and the conditions imposed by the insurers to prevent accidents would be intolerably restrictive.

If you have to ask then you don't need a gun.

yeah I'd go along with that. such a requirement would disproportionatly burden the poor. would be like a poll tax. and allow the insurance companies to play the role of congress.

It's not bullshit. Are you at all acquainted with the activities of Sarah Brady and her fanatically anti-gun followers? These people, all of whom are Democrats, want to see the end of civilian gun ownership.



What does the Second Amendment have to do with hunting? I think you need to contemplate that question awhile.



Who said gun owners have anything against police protection and stronger laws? I believe most of them are not so naive as to think that police are able to protect everyone, everywhere, all the time.

It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. But there should of course be choice. If you would prefer not to own a gun, that is perfectly okay with the gunners.


Again the issue of "sporting" finds its way into the issue of gun ownership, as if the Second Amendment had anything at all to do with sport.

While I do intend to vote for Obama I find this bit of rhetoric to be a prime example of meaningless, conciliatory bullshit which in no way deals realistically with the issue of gun ownership.

Then buy a tank, because your assault rifle pop gun isnt gonna do shit. It will help you a great deal as a drug dealer or gang member though.

Here's my bigger question: What are you afraid of?

And my suggestion: Dial down the fear, and dial up the reasoned thinking. Whatever's freaking you out, find ways to solve that problem that don't involve a gun.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

What is it about this that you don't understand? We've had this conversation before.

In a civilized society we learn to deal with things without reverting back to force. I will vote for Obama because he wants to take us into the future where we can protect ourselves without arming everyone. You, on the other hand, seem hell bent to take us into the past where cowboys walked the streets and gun fights were the only law of the land, that is not progress.

Sarah Brady nor anyone else, wants your gun if you use it responsibly.

A gun is a gun. they all shoot a bullet. Take a .22 cal. semi-auto depending on the gun some will hold 10 to 24 rounds and they will shoot just as fast as an assault rifle and are just as deadly.you should educate yourself on assault guns. They are used in match shooting and other shooting competitions. they are also good varmit guns. We have a lot of problems with coyotes and wild hogs here in Texas we hunt them all the time.

Nobody sued the NRA for making something that harms people. I mean, that's what guns do.

They were sued by gun owners over failing to put proper safety devices on their guns.

Who did they side with? Not gun consumers, but gun manufacturers, saying they should be shielded from suit.

Likewise, from cities suing them, over dumping their guns illegally in areas that make it easy for criminals to obtain them.

LOL LOL.Automatic weapons have been illegal for a long time. Do you know the difference between semi-auto and automatic. Little o should read up on the law. About the only thing a .50 cal is good for is match shooting or very long target shooting.

Is this an unintentional error? I've never read or heard anything about the NRA being sued.



Many very common firearms have no safety devices whatsoever. It is presumably up to the user to understand proper handling, just as it is up to the owner of a car, or a chain saw, to understand how to properly operate it.



Why not? The guns in question were not defective and every one sold came with an informational brochure -- as is required by law.


"Dumping?"

I'm not aware of any legitimate firearms manufacturer having transferred guns to any entity other than a federally licensed firearms dealer, which relieves them of all responsibility for distribution. If you are aware of any exception I will appreciate learning the specifics.

You might be talking about illegal importation and distribution of cheap so-called "Saturday night specials," a situation which is vaguely similar to drug smuggling and exemplifies the futility of trying to suppress bootlegging of anything for which there is a demand. Simply stated, there is no way to prevent acquisition of illegal guns, most of which travel through the same channels as illegal drugs.

Typo. Of course, the NRA is so in bed with/associated with the gun industry, I can see why I made it. I meant the "gun industry".



Great. You are a Republican. Why not just admit it? You don't want industry to take any responsibility for properly designing their products to be safe. I understand guns are made to be lethal, safety devices prevent them from being accidentally lethal to unintentional targets, including oneself.

Those folks whose baby got strangled in the bars of their crib - they probably just didn't read the manual properly. You would shield the manufacturers there, too.



Yeah - I know - it's crazy! These days people want cars with things like seat belts, air bags, highbeams, antilock brakes - what will they ask for next ?!?!



Well, then, the dealers are responsible. But I consider retail outlets part of any "industry".

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/art...8/27/the_sting/

New York City's lawsuit is based on BATFE data that traces the sales history of guns recovered in crimes in a number of US cities between 1994 and 2001. The data reveals that more than 500 guns used to commit crimes in the city were sold by just 15 gun dealers in Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Earlier this year, the city hired a private investigative firm to conduct a sting operation against these 15 dealers. Investigators, working in pairs, videotaped store clerks illegally selling guns to individuals whom the clerks believed to be straw purchasers. A straw purchaser is an individual who fills out the personal information required to pass a federally mandated background check in order to purchase a gun for another person, typically one who is legally ineligible to purchase a gun based on a felony conviction or other disqualification or may simply wish not to be recorded as the purchaser of the gun in the event that it is later recovered in a crime. Federal law prohibits licensed dealers from making a sale when they have a reasonable belief that the firearm being sold is not for the person who purports to be the purchaser.

In the New York City sting, one investigator would make all of the inquiries about purchasing the gun and the second investigator would show up at the counter only to fill out the background check information. The lawsuit alleges that by allowing such straw purchases, the 15 out-of-state dealers facilitate illegal gun trafficking that increases gun violence in New York City. The city alleges that the gun violence resulting from the way that these dealers do business constitutes a ``public nuisance" - an unreasonable interference with public health and safety. While public nuisance litigation has traditionally been used to go after polluters, New York City Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo has explained that just as the city might sue to stop the illegal dumping of sewage into waterways that flow into the city, it is now suing to stop the illegal dumping of guns into the black market that end up in New York. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and asks the court to put an end to the illegal sales.

[snip]

Once again, how about those gun dealers taking some of the ever famous "personal responsibility" the Republicans are known for?

Yes I'm very much aware.

I was a Republican for most of my voting years (I'm 72) but I switched to the Democratic Party two years ago to vote in primaries. I would have switched to Independent instead but there is no Independent Party in New Jersey.

As far as I and the vast majority of pro-gun Americans are concerned, firearms, like automobiles, are inherently dangerous if not properly and competently handled and operated. But the number of avoidable gun accidents in America is miniscule compared with the number of avoidable automobile accidents.



While it may be said that the manufacturer of the crib could have foreseen the possibility of the baby's head being trapped between the bars, it may also be said that the baby's parents could have foreseen it as well. The spacing of the crib's bars was not the result of negligence. Of all the cribs ever made, how many times has something like this happened? The pivot in this case is emotional rather than practical.



Yet, with all of these safety provisions there still are people who eat, smoke, chat and do all sorts of distracting things while driving their cars, which accounts for the majority of accidents. The cars cannot be blamed for these examples of improper usage and the same may be said for gun accidents. When we consider how many millions (actual number unknown) of guns are in the hands of American citizens the number of avoidable accidents is actually very small compared with the proportionate number of avoidable automobile accidents.

Gun ownership is a valuable, distinctly American liberty and like any valuable thing it has a price. The risk of occasional accident and misuse is a price I am willing to pay. Just as the risk of being killed or injured by some careless driver is the price I'm willing to pay every time I put my car on the road.


Most gun dealers (and pharmacists) are scrupulously ethical. But there are and always will be exceptions to every rule.

Oh lord here we go with the cars are dangerous too. Guns are made to kill.

So how come automobile drivers don't scream about traffic lights, stop signs, car safety regulations, driver's licensing, and speed limits as a "fundamental assault on their personal liberty to drive," but when you suggest similar things for guns, gun owners adopt that insane rhetoric?

The ironic thing is cars can kill, but only when used for an unintended purpose; when guns kill their owner, family members, or innocent victims, they are being used for their intended purpose, just hitting an unintended target.

Seems to me the higher the design for lethality, the more the need for regulation. But maybe I'm just trying to be rational, again, silly me.

and a criminal with a gun can do a hell of lot more damage.

Depends. If you take a large automobile and plow it into a crowd of people at high speed, many will die.

If you cause an auto accident on the Autobahn, you may also kill many as several slam into the accident pile at high speed.

But again, I don't understand why gun nuts don't get that hey, maybe we need controls on automatic weapons with high rates of fire? I mean, crap, it's been true since the 1930s.

It is interesting that cars are not made to kill but they kill infinitely more people than guns do. And while all guns (or knives, or bows) are not made to kill, the vast majority of those which are made for killing are never needed to fulfill that purpose. And of those times when a gun is used to kill or injure the reason is often lawful and justifiable.

Some do.



Most do not. Most gun owners agree with existing gun regulations and comply with them.



You're talking about accidents. What is the proportional ratio of gun accidents vs auto accidents?


To justify this theory you'll need to base it on something. The fact is the most lethal firearms are least involved in gun accidents or misuse. For example, the majority of gun accidents and misuse involve a handgun, typically a 9mm. But while one of the most lethal and commonly owned firearms is the 12 ga. shotgun, accidents and misuse of the 12 ga. is comparatively rare (one exception being Cheney's drunken mishap).

I personally own an M-1 Garand, which is one hell of a lethal firearm. There are several million of these WW-II and Korea era military rifles owned by civilians. I've never heard of one being involved in an accident or a crime. Not one.

And an armed citizen can neutralize a criminal with a gun -- as is often the case.

The fact is there are several ordinary bullets which are capable of penetrating body armor -- such as just about any ordinary hunting rifle bullet. Also, a jacketed .357 handgun round will do it. So this so-called "cop-killer bullet" law is typical of the kind of nonsensical bullshit which the Schumer, Feinstein, Brady cult comes up with to exploit the gun-ignorant public around election time. This is exactly the kind of stuff that drives many gun-owners to vote Republican, which is the only point I'm trying to make here.




For what possible reason might one need a sports car or motorcycle which is capable of reaching 150mph? Why would one need to own a Samurai sword? And while you might not be aware of it, any responsible citizen can own a fully automatic weapon -- a machine gun. All it takes is a Class III federal license, which many civilians have. My question is how many times are such weapons involved in accidents or crimes as compared with the more ordinary weapons? The answer is almost never.

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/acc...identsfull.html

7. Firearms
Deaths per year: 1,500

1. Motor vehicle crashes
Deaths per year: 43,200

I won't disagree with your statement that accidental car deaths are more frequent; however, it does not mean I agree with your position that those accidental gun deaths could not and/or should not be prevented by additional regulations and safety mechanisms.

And here we go again, getting caught up in the gun issue. Maybe the words of soon to be elected president Obama can be interjected here:

http://www.demconvention.com/barack-obama/

From his acceptance speech:

[snip]

"We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort."

That's crap and you know it. That's a script out of a Rambo movie. That's not the America I served four years of my life for. You seem to be watching too many movies.