I'm pro-gun. So are you.

It took me a long while to catch on, but I finally did it.
It all started with last week's D.C. appellate court decision that struck down the D.C. handgun ban as unconstitutional. As I'm researching the subject trying to figure how it'll all play out, I took a look around at the pundits, the politicians, and the Dem base in the hopes of gauging the reaction and maybe getting a feel for the next move.
I noticed something very curious: The majority of the Democratic rank and file that weighed in do not support gun control!

Bet you thought you were in the minority, huh? So did I. So did I...

First stop was Fark. Now granted, Fark isn't exactly the most liberal website on the internet by any stretch, and I wasn't surprised by what I saw there; overwhelming support for the decision.
I needed a representative progressive website to get a genuine reaction. Where better than DailyKos? But wait...what's this? Only one diary entry even bothers to mention it ( a "rescued" diary at that)? The author supports the decision? As do most of the respondents?

I was a little taken aback, as was one of the commenters.
"One thing I have difficulty understanding at DailyKos is the firearm possession enthusiasm many seem to have."
And maybe this person is right. Maybe the folks here at DailyKos simply aren't representative enough of the liberal base and I just needed to look elsewhere.
And so I did. After some fruitless searching that failed to yield any commentary on the subject I tried TalkLeft.
Same result!
After that...more fruitless searches.
I give up. I simply can't find this bastion of anti-gun liberals. I'm beginning to strongly suspect that they simply aren't the majority in the Democratic party as I once believed.

Why am I pro-gun?

Simple. Same reason I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, and anti-Bush: I believe in the cause of freedom in America. I believe that tyranny is the only possible outcome when the government is allowed to ignore the Constitution "for the greater good". The Bill of Rights simply doesn't allow for gun control. The 2nd Amdt is very clear on the subject because the framers specifically wanted us armed.
They wanted us armed so that we could defend ourselves from the bears in the woods. They wanted us armed so that we could put food on our tables. They wanted us armed so we could defend ourselves from each other, foreign invaders, and most importantly the tyranny of our own government. The framers were very clear on this. There is no confusion.
If we wish to change this, there is a legal means at our disposal; amendment. Until such time as the 2nd is repealed, tho' it stands as written.

We live in a time when our own executive branch can investigate us without a warrant, imprison us without charges, torture us with impunity, and restrict our rights without recourse. It's all well and good to suggest that the police can protect you from the bad guys (which incidentally they can't), but who will protect us from the police?
The 2nd Amendment is NOT an anachronism. It's more relavant today than it has ever been in recent history. The greatest threat to our way of life isn't sitting in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, he's sitting in the oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

That man needs a reminder that we are armed and willing to defend our rights. It's that simple.

So just who are these anti-gun folks?

#1) Politicians. Oddly enough, the folks in Washington don't seem to like the idea that we might...well...shoot them if they get too far out of line. We're apparently much easier to control when we can't defend ourselves. Go figure.
#2) Victims of gun violence. This is perhaps the most absurd group and I'll tell you why: This nation is awash in guns and it's awash in gun control laws. They have yet to curb "gun violence" because by-and-large the "gun violence" is being committed by people who don't obey the law! Isn't it obvious? The Columbine massacre was committed in a federally-declared "gun free zone" by lawbreakers who were abetted by law breakers. It still happened! Fat lot of good all the "assault weapon" bans did there, eh? So much for "gun free zones"!
Gun control is a farce because you can't control the behavior of the insane through insane laws. That approach is simply...insane.
Washington, D.C. has the highest per-capita firearms related deaths in the country as a direct result of it's draconian gun control policy. Nobody is armed except the cops and the bad guys, and the cops never seem to be around when you need them. Again, go figure.
#3) The uninformed. I don't enjoy using that term lightly, but I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain that Glocks can't really pass through metal detectors, "cop-killer" teflon-coated Talon bullets don't really penetrate bullet proof vests, and terrorists don't use .50 caliber sniper rifles.
These people have simply been duped by the rhetoric spewed by group #1. Thankfully, they are for the most part willing to fact-check if somebody points out these errors.

So what do we do about it?
It's pretty evident that our party has a policy that doesn't reflect our wishes. First step is to stand up and be counted. Comments appreciated.
After that....? I'm all ears. I think that once we make it clear to the leadership that we're on to their little game things will have to change. Comments/ suggestions welcome here too.

So let's take a roll-call and bat it around. I'm pro-gun.

   

 
 

•  Speak for yourself

  "It's pretty evident that our party has a policy that doesn't reflect our wishes. First step is to stand up and be counted. ...
  think that once we make it clear to the leadership that we're on to their little game...."

  Why do you assume to speak for everyone? There are many people here who aren't "pro gun."  Do you really think that everyone for gun control is either a "politician" or a "victim?"

  The paragraph under "Why am I pro-gun?" illustrates the problem in your logic.  You are using the word "freedom" in a simplistic way to tie things that are unconnected together.  This is the sort of things that Republicans and Libertarians do all the time.

  Sorry;  I can't stand with you on this one.

  by Nihilvor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:18:40 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, pretty much :)

    Why do you assume to speak for everyone?
    I don't presume to speak for everyone. Just the majority. We'll find out shortly whether or not I'm correct.
    Do you really think that everyone for gun control is either a "politician" or a "victim?"

    Or un/misinformed. One of the 3.

    I'll cut to the chase here. The only earthly way you're going to curb gun violence is by a) getting rid of the guns or b) making sure that the law-abiding citizens have equal access to them. Anything else is counter-productive.  

    by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:29:43 PM PDT

    •  Why no poll?

      by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:44:55 PM PDT

      •  Honestly never occured to me.

        Maybe I should add one, huh? :D

        by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:51:50 PM PDT

        •  It may be appropriate.

          by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:26:39 PM PDT

          •  I agree

            It's been rectified. Please participate if you haven't already.
            Best,
            -John

            by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:31:50 PM PDT

            •  Done.

              Thanks.

              by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:40:42 PM PDT

    •  That's a terrific way

      To win people to your side: Tell them they are "uninformed."

      When people lead off their arguments with insults, I usually find they aren't very interested in winning hearts and minds. If they were, they'd be more thoughtful in their approach.

      by DavidNYC on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:03:10 PM PDT

      •  What can I say?

        I've never been particularly good at the art of blowin' smoke up people's rectums. That's why I discuss politics instead of running for office.
        So yeah, that's your 3 choices IMO. Sorry if you're offended by that.

        by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:08:56 PM PDT

        •  I'm not offended in the least

          I just think you've manifested zero interest in winning people to your point of view. And I consider that to be very weak indeed.

          by DavidNYC on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:12:54 PM PDT

          •  You're correct

            I'm not interested in winning anybody over. I'm just pointing out that the majority of them agree with me. Which (oh snap) they apparently do according to the poll results.

            by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:15:59 PM PDT

            •  I see

              You mean these poll results, kemosabe? Enjoy preaching to your choir.

              by DavidNYC on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:30:13 PM PDT

              •  Not exactly

                Apparently DailyKos is well-right of center. Who woulda thunkit? :D

                by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:33:24 PM PDT

                •  By an overwhelming vote

                  Of 14-9, in a highly scientific poll, you, sir, are correct!

                  by DavidNYC on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:34:32 PM PDT

                  •  The sad thing?

                    I come to Daily Kos instead of going to Hit & Run because I like the idea of trying to persuade people towards a slightly more libertarian outlook, rather than just handing them my analysis like I just brought the commandments down from Sinai.

                    You think that's a mistake on my part?

                    by Jay Elias on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:47:50 PM PDT

                    •  Not at all

                      Just that many here seem to prefer reinforcement to challenge.

                      by DavidNYC on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:03:05 PM PDT

  •  I hope you read this

    "You are using the word "freedom" in a simplistic way to tie things that are unconnected together."

    I am honestly puzzled by this statement. If you get the chance, could you expand on this point?

    I see a very clear and concrete connection between them embodied in the Bill of Rights.
    Example: Gay marriage
    1st Amendment "freedom of religion"
    Translation: The Congress cannot pass a law enforcing a religious concept (such as "sanctity of marriage") because religious matters are not within their purview.

    by GoSlash27 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:49:33 AM PDT

•  You're pro-gun. I am not.

  Doesn't mean we can't get along :^)

  by Diaries on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:19:06 PM PDT

•  No. I am not.

  But one thing I have learned in this life on the Interweb is never to engage in a discussion flame war about either gun control or the death penalty.  

  by rserven on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:19:58 PM PDT

  •  Not to mention dangerous

    The part I quote below is a little dangerous.  Is the poster trying to incite his/her audience?  Weird.

    "The greatest threat to our way of life isn't sitting in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, he's sitting in the oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
    That man needs a reminder that we are armed and willing to defend our rights. It's that simple."

    by Nihilvor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:24:42 PM PDT

  •  Flame-war?

    About gun control on Kos? Un-possible! ;)
    That's kinda my point...

    by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:34:19 PM PDT

•  It depends on the kind of gun control...

  ...you're talking about.

  I'd describe myself as pro-gun control. I want mandatory waiting periods, background checks, safety locks, registration of both weapons and ammunition, mandatory safety training before one may legally own a firearm, and sentence enhancements for crimes committed with the use of a gun. I don't see any good reason why the average citizen should be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase an Uzi just for the hell of it, but I don't have a problem with personal handguns, hunting rifles, and the like. Or rather, I have a problem with them, but that's just me, and others should have to abide by my personal preference.

  And I think those restrictions are reasonable, not only because, to paraphrase Howard Dean, I don't live in Vermont, but because there's a key part of the Second Amendment that is commonly forgotten when gun control is discussed:

  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  Regulation is written into the Constitution. So you can keep your guns -- that's fine with me. But let's have some reasonable limitations. I accept that most gun crimes are committed by people who would break the law no matter what we do, but the vast majority of people aren't going to be any safer without the restrictions I've mentioned, and most would be in more danger, if only from their own carelessness or the added opportunity for overreacting violently that a gun provides.

  by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:20:20 PM PDT

  •  On a couple of your points.

    Something that confuses me because I don't understand why proponents want the following:

    -Safety locks. Ok, it's probably a good idea to put a safety lock on a firearm but how the heck can that be enforced by law?

    -Registration. Both firearms and ammuntion? I don't understand the push for firearm registration but I'm totally confused by the idea of ammo registration. How would that even work and what is the benefit?

    On the subject of buying an Uzi. Uzi's are sub-machine guns and machine guns of any kind have been illegal to own since 1934 so there's no need to worry about that particular firearm.

    On the first clause in the 2nd amendment, it says that the militia should be well regulated. It doesn't say that arms should be regulated. As to the militia clause, it is dependent on the second clause, not the other way around. In other words, the second clause can stand on its own, the first can't, meaning that the emphasis is on the second clause.

    by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:34:40 PM PDT

    •  I think the ammo registration

      is simply a secondary check.  In other words, you didn't register your glock, bought it in the underground market, and are now seeking ammo.  Gotta register your name, address etc., to get the ammo.

      by DMiller on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:44:28 PM PDT

      •  So to summarize...

        A criminal will shoot someone with registered ammunition traceable to him instead of simply shooting someone with un-registered and untraceable ammo?

        by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:47:33 PM PDT

      •  But would it be like a permit thing?

        Or just a form one fills out when purchasing ammo? Then what happens to the form?

        by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:52:08 PM PDT

        •  Well, if it works like gun

          registration does not, the criminal registrant will use a false name and the trail will end there.

          ;-)

          by DMiller on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:02:00 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      Safety locks: you want a gun, you buy a safety lock. If something happens because you weren't using it properly, you go to prison for a while (or for a while longer, as the case may be).

      Registration: I want it to be very easy for the police to solve any gun crime. I want them to be able to figure out very easily where guns and ammunition came from when they're used in the commission of a crime. With ammunition, it's as simple as using a serial number and filing paperwork every time it's sold.

      Uzis: That's a form of gun control, isn't it? If you ask the NRA, though, they'll probably tell you it's inappropriate.

      2nd: Debatable. In context, I'd say it says that because we need a well-regulated militia, people must have the right to bear arms -- the first clause justifies the second.

      by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:46:10 PM PDT

      •  ok.

        If something happens because you weren't using it properly, you go to prison for a while (or for a while longer, as the case may be).

        Can you give me an example?

        I want it to be very easy for the police to solve any gun crime. I want them to be able to figure out very easily where guns and ammunition came from when they're used in the commission of a crime. With ammunition, it's as simple as using a serial number and filing paperwork every time it's sold.

        Police can already track down who purchased a firearm if they find one that has been used in a crime and it's really easy for them to do it.

        How one would put a serial number on a bullet which would survive the bullet being fired is beyond me.

        Uzis: Sorry. It thought you were using an example of something you thought could be purchased legally.

        2nd: So if the first clause justifies the second then the regulation portion is clearly about militias and not about firearms. No?

        by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:23:07 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          Locks: Children get into your closet where you store your gun. You're not using the lock or you're not using it properly. One child accidentally shoots another child to death. You go to prison because your negligence led to the death.

          Bullets: Bullets aren't that hard to track. The compositions of the metal and chemicals can be tracked to specific batches made by specific manufacturers. Place a serial number on each box of ammo and trace it, and the police can more easily figure out how it was acquired if it's used in a crime.

          2nd: No. If the first clause justifies the second, then the "well-regulated militia" of the 21st century is your local police department. The Second Amendment was written at a time when the US population was more like what we see today in countries with mandatory conscription and lifetime reserve duty -- citizens had no choice but to be members of the "well-regulated militia" because national survival, let alone national security, demanded it. We live in a different world now, and no matter what anyone tells you, no matter what your interpretation of the meaning of the words, we don't apply the literal interpretation of the Constitution. Take a look at the Sixth and Seventh Amendments:

          In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

          In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

          I highlighted a few passages there -- you don't get a right to a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions, and you don't have a right to an attorney in all criminal proceedings. And as for the 7th, $20? I'm not 100% certain on this one, but I'd bet we take almost 220 years of inflation into account on that.

          by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:41:47 PM PDT

          •  Points.

            Locks: Children get into your closet where you store your gun.

            I don't have children.

            Bullets: Bullets aren't that hard to track. The compositions of the metal and chemicals can be tracked to specific batches made by specific manufacturers.

            That's a myth. There is no science behind this premise and courts are becoming very skeptical of testimony by "experts" who claim there is.

            As for the rest, well, I don't want to tangle with you on the subject anymore frankly since I've read your account of going toe to toe with Nazi's. We have the same enemies. I prefer to be armed when I have to face them. I think you should be too.

            by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:34:50 PM PDT

            •  No, I shouldn't

              I don't need to be. I fought the Nazis when they were armed and I wasn't, and I won. I don't need a gun to defend myself. Hell, as far as the Nazis are concerned, I'm Rasputin. Further, given my (justified) hatred of such people, what's my guarantee that I cross the line from using my hypothetical gun in self-defense against them to preemptively killing them? If you think "self-control" is an answer there, you don't appreciate the depth of my hatred for them. Accordingly, it's not a risk I'm willing to take.

              And while I don't think you're suggesting that we should mandate that everyone be armed as some towns have attempted to do, if someone came after me for refusing to arm myself, s/he'd more likely than not find him/herself disarmed. And I'm not just talking about a weapon -- come after me for not being armed, and I'll consider that a threat to my safety and act in kind.

              As for the gun locks, fine, you don't have children. Lots of other people with guns do. The government is always regulating situations where the potential for harm is greater than normal. You might not think that's appropriate, but the government does it anyway, and most people think it's proper that they do so. A gun's purpose is to serve as a deadly weapon, and if a person is negligent in storing it and that negligence results in another person's death, that gun owner deserves to go to prison. Maybe it's not an issue for you now. But you're not the general case.

              Look, the whole point of my original comment here, and all my subsequent comments for that matter, is that certain restrictions are wholly appropriate. We can debate about where to draw the line, but I will forever maintain that you don't need automatic weapons unless you work for the police or a similar governmentally sanctioned paramilitary unit; that "if we ban guns, criminals will still have or try to get them" is a silly argument because it's also true of weapons we ought to be able to agree you have absolutely no right to have (e.g., nukes); and that given the prevalence of gun violence in this country, safety courses with periodic refreshers should be mandatory for all gun owners, safety locks should be mandatory for all gun owners, and all firearms should be registered with full ballistic records. Nevertheless, there are legitimate reasons for private citizens to own guns, so people without any personal history of criminal behavior or other disqualifying criteria ought to be allowed to have certain kinds of weapons.

              Howard Dean got it exactly right -- he earned high marks from the NRA when he was governor of Vermont because he was governor of Vermont; had he been mayor of New York City instead, the NRA would have hated him. The context matters, and as a matter of national policy, it's a very bad idea not to put significant restrictions on gun ownership. You know how dumb a lot of people are -- over 60 million people voted to reelect the worst president in US history, and about 90 million Americans still think he's doing a good job. Now imagine those 90 million Americans armed to the teeth -- they'd be the single biggest threat there is to our national security.

              by wiscmass on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:05:14 AM PDT

    •  You don't seem at all bothered by the fact

      that owning machine guns has been illegal since 1934.  Why?  You should be, since in the very next sentence you state that militias are to be regulated, but not arms.  So you should be very upset that ownership of machine guns has been illegal since 1934.  Yet you brush it off, saying "there's no need to worry about that particular firearm."

      by jazzmaniac on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:49:09 PM PDT

      •  I strongly support the ban

        on private ownership of surface-to-air missiles. Bazookas too, I don't like  what they do to deer, the shrapnel makes the meat too gritty... on the other hand, they negate the need for a meat grinder.

        by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:55:51 PM PDT

        •  :D

          That's funny!

          by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:03:59 PM PDT

      •  Doesn't bother me a bit.

        Not upset at all.

        You sound like you may be though. Want to talk about it?

        by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:24:34 PM PDT

  •  Agree on some issues

    disagree on others.

    A comprehensive gun safety course is fine by me. That fits in with the well regulated part of the second amendment.

    Registration of guns, I am fairly neutral on, never bothered me very much one way or the other.

    Registration of ammo? Overdoing it, and would be very, very difficult.

    If I want to own an assault rifle, am responsible, law abiding citizen, who has passed the courses set forth by the government, why should I not be allowed to own one?

    Safety locks should be required for all guns in households with children. One way to somewhat ensure this would be mandatory lock sales with all new guns purchased.

    And crimes committed with guns should have a much harsher penalty then crimes committed without them.

    by redcardphreek on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:42:30 PM PDT

    •  Re: assault rifles...

      ...ok, fair enough.

      If I want to own a rocket launcher or a thermonuclear weapon, and I'm a responsible, law abiding citizen who has passed the courses set forth by the government (of which I believe there aren't any for those particular weapons), why should I not be allowed to own one?

      There's an extent to which it becomes a question of degree of potential damage. You seem to think an assault rifle is a justifiable possession for a private citizen; I disagree. I can respect your position, but I grew up surrounded by people who loved their guns, would have delighted in carrying around M-16s if they could have gotten away with it, and would have shot me to death if they'd had M-16s. I don't think it's so reasonable in that context, but the government wouldn't have had a problem with most of those people having their assault weapons -- they were otherwise responsible, law abiding citizens who just happened to be rabid anti-Semites.

      by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:51:30 PM PDT

      •  Not disputing your point

        I don't support assault weapons ownership either (at least not in the US), but I think it's interesting to point out that nearly every household in Switzerland possesses an assault rifle. They are almost never used or implicated in criminal behavior there either.

        What the hell is wrong with the US? The roots of violence here go way beyond the weapons utilized. Are we missing a responsibility gene? Is it something in the water? What...?

        by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:06:31 PM PDT

        •  Switzerland has a different culture

          They don't glorify gratuitous shootings with assault weapons over there in their popular culture. Here, we do. I would argue that makes us less responsible as a society when it comes to weapons -- and if I had the time to do so, I could dig up the psychological studies that prove it.

          by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:11:06 PM PDT

          •  If you think an anti-semite is going to shoot...

            you if he has an assault rifle....I wouldn't talk too much about Swiss popular culture.  

            by joesig on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:14:57 PM PDT

            •  That would depend on

              what kind of anti-Semite. The Swiss have a long record of (relative) non-violence, despite any prejudices that may have been found there in the past.

              In any case though, I think it would be a disservice to the Swiss to dismiss them all as anti-Semites. They have a level of tolerance and acceptance that few other nations have matched, including the US.

              by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:39:38 PM PDT

              •  I know they were pretty accepting of the Nazis.

                Pretty tolerant of their policies.  Neutrality in pursuit of...what, exactly?  

                Separate from the discussion, though...how are you?  Still overseas?  Good to see your name here.  

                by joesig on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 03:37:23 AM PDT

                •  We're fine

                  we came back to the states in time for the election. It was pretty close to three years abroad. We're living in the greater Cincinnati area these days (close to one set of grandparents).

                  by mosesfreeman on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:24:14 AM PDT

        •  What's an "assault rifle"

          I would like a very strict definition.
          I personally own several "assault weapons" according to the current wording as do my friends. None of them have taken out any schools or have been implicated in any crimes. Maybe my water supply is just better?

          by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:12:20 PM PDT

          •  I think of something

            capable of full-auto fire, as opposed to a semi-automatic. I would call the M-16 an assault rifle, whereas it's semi-auto cousin, the AR-15, I would not.

            Your mileage may vary...

            by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:15:59 PM PDT

            •  My mileage does vary

              As does that of the Federal government.
              Until just recently even my pistol was considered an "assault weapon" due to it's high-capacity magazines. My sinister black CX4...don't even get me started :D
              The NFA of '34 pretty well handled the full-auto stuff and the sawed-off shotguns. An unfortunate by-product was the senseless deaths of blacks in the deep south due to their resultant inability to defend themselves, but that's another matter.

              Here's a little research assignment: Find out exactly what constitutes an "assault weapon" by their standards and then tell me if you still support owning them.

              by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:21:57 PM PDT

              •  Typo

                Owning= banning

                by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:22:50 PM PDT

              •  Oh I know they stretch the definition

                way past the breaking point. The current laws stink due to a complete lack of reasonability regarding what an "assault weapon" is.

                That's been a hallmark of the would-be gun-banners for thrity years. Remember the debates on just what a "Saturday Night Special" was? A cheap handgun, but how cheap is cheap?

                If I had a dollar for every minute someone wasted on that kind of hair-splitting crap, I'd be richer than Halliburton.

                by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:31:56 PM PDT

                •  Right...

                  So who gets to decide exactly what constitutes an "assault weapon" and how do we review whether or not the definition makes sense?
                  The latest attempt is to ban "sniper-style weapons" which are described as having a "rapid toggling reload" feature and accuracy to outrageous distances. This happens to describe every bolt-action hunting rifle in existence.

                  The devil is in the details...or perhaps I should say "rhetoric".

                  You see, all firearms are, by definition, "assault weapons". They have no innate capacity for good or evil. The M1 Garands that stormed the beaches at Normandy were "good". The AK-47s that mowed down the schoolteachers at Hue were "bad". The CX4 in my closet? Good. The one that took out a school in Canada last year? Bad.

                  Keep in mind what you're banning and what good it will accomplish. Above all else, keep this in mind: Bad guys don't care about what's banned.

                  by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:42:19 PM PDT

                  •  I like the 1934 law

                    I don't see much need for additional legislation.

                    Except the part about sawed-off shotguns... I'm not sure why they are singled out. A fifty caliber handgun with the right ammunition could do as much or more damage as a sawed-off shotgun.

                    by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:56:56 PM PDT

              •  Frankly, if you take the dowell out of

                a shotgun you can get in a hell of a lot of trouble.

                by DMiller on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:05:35 PM PDT

  •  Ditto the above

    The wording guarantees the right of the "people", not the right of the "militia". I repeat, the framers were very specific about their intent.

    Ammo registration? Not possible. Gun registration would be, but do you really want to go down that road? I'm thinkin' that telling the government exactly who's armed and who isn't is at least as dangerous as giving them access to your bank account, your reading habits, your phone records....

    As for the rest, this particular blind spot never fails to intrigue me. We don't want the government telling us what to watch, what to listen to, who to have sex with, how to raise our own children etc, but we simply aren't responsible enough to handle a firearm without their direct supervision. Odd, that...

    by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:43:39 PM PDT

    •  Sure we do

      We don't want the government telling us what to watch, what to listen to, who to have sex with, how to raise our own children etc

      Who is "we"? If you're talking about liberals in general, we absolutely do. We want the government rating movies, TV, and music so that parents can make informed decisions about what their kids see and hear. We want laws restricting sexual behavior to consenting adults, and stiff penalties for statutory rape. We want laws that prohibit child abuse. We want the government telling us what we can and cannot do in all kinds of situations where the potential for harm is elevated. As the NRA slogan goes, "guns don't kill people." Fair enough, but people with guns can kill people a hell of a lot more easily than people without guns.

      So yeah, I want to go down that road. Because while I don't want to own a gun myself, the next time someone shoots at me, I want that person to rot in prison for a very long time, and I want it to be very easy for the police to track that person down via ballistics and registration.

      by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:18:49 PM PDT

      •  Guns don't kill people...

        ...bullets kill people.  Guns just make bullets go really fast.

        by rserven on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:24:43 PM PDT

        •  Actually

          trauma and blood loss kill people. The bullets just make it happen.

          by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:33:37 PM PDT

          •  That's not fair

            You can't blame it on trauma and blood loss. Clearly, it's all Bill Clinton's fault.

            .

            .

            .

            .

            Anyone who didn't realize that was snark right away should go to sleep right now.

            by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:46:10 PM PDT

            •  but but

              it IS Bill Clinton's fault!

              He traumatized most of my neighbors. I'm still in exile, this time in Kentuckystan.

              by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:02:03 PM PDT

              •  OT

                Where does Penntucky end and Kentuckystan begin?

                by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:05:08 PM PDT

                •  the border

                  runs right through Dogpatch.

                  by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:11:34 PM PDT

                •  Moonshine Daylight Time?

                  OK, it's definitely time to go to bed.  If only all these migraine meds didn't make me so jumpy.

                  by gazingoffsouthward on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:30:26 PM PDT

              •  A joke I remember from my time in Indiana:

                What's the best thing that ever came out of Kentucky?

                by rserven on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:08:12 PM PDT

                •  I dunno...

                  chewing tobacco?

                  by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:18:13 PM PDT

                  •  Empty Greyhound.

                    [Not my joke, you understand.  I was just there recovering from my surgery.]

                    by rserven on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:36:39 PM PDT

        •  Great reference.

          Jake Johannsen I believe.

          by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:54:19 PM PDT

          •  Actually, no.

            Maybe me.  Maybe George Nemeyer.  It's so long ago, who remembers?

            by rserven on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:06:33 PM PDT

      •  The next time someone shoots at you?

        So you have been shot at in the past?

        by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:55:28 PM PDT

        •  Twice that I know of

          See here for some of the context. Look, I understand the "maximize freedom" impulse. I also know, from experience and much to my misfortune, that maximizing freedom makes it easier for "otherwise responsible, law abiding citizens" to kill people they don't like for no good reason.

          by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:00:47 PM PDT

          •  They can do that anyway

            legally or not. I've been a target too.

            The fact is, nutjobs are out there, and they will strike periodically, no matter what laws are in place. Some idiot just sent the Edwards campaign an envelope of white powder... no guns involved. Terror has a million ways that it can manifest itself.

            I vote for being well-armed.

            by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:29:34 PM PDT

          •  The guy that targetted my family

            is here. Luckily he's in federal prison as we speak, although not for long enough... twelve years.

            The mosque in question is where we attended, and where my children played. I can't describe the fear and devastation that accompanied these revelations. The community nearly disintegrated, and it was one of the reasons I took my family to Qatar.

            by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:03:28 PM PDT

            •  That's flat out terrifying.

              Glad you're ok but I'm sorry you had to flee.

              It's freaks like that and the Nazi's that wicmass has had to deal with that confirm to me that there should probably be more guns and not fewer.

              "Kill all rags,"

              He said.....

              Well what if all the "rags" were armed and knew how to use their weapons? What if when a guy like this showed up to a mosque or a Muslim home looking to do some damage and got chopped off at the knees with a 12gauge shotgun blast instead?

              How long before other guys like that just decided to mind their own business because it's just too dangerous not to.

              by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:45:16 PM PDT

              •  we didn't have to flee...

                but the community pretty much disintegrated after the fact. Most folks stopped going, and the few people still attending the masjid (mosque) were largely radicalized, so there wasn't much point in sticking around. At the time the propaganda for the Iraq war was heating up as well.

                We protested the war vehemently before it started, but once it did start, it became clear that a majority of our neighbors staunchly supported it. Having lost our faith community, and feeling fairly uncomfortable with the mood of bloodlust then current in America, we left shortly thereafter.

                Guns wouldn't have helped in Goldstein's case, his plan was to set a sequential array of explosives at every exit of the mosque, so that no one would emerge alive. He was apparently only days away from committing this crime, but for the "lucky" break that he beat his wife.

                She saved us.

                There was a domestic altercation, police were called, and she told them that he had these weapons and explosives. When the police found them, they were rigged and ready to go.

                Anyhow, the idea that an armed populace is a more risky target than one that is unarmed is not lost on us...

                by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:35:28 PM PDT

          •  Holy smokes.

            Actual Nazi's. Wow. I hate those motherf*ckers so bad.

            They have guns. They ain't gonna give em up either. In fact I fear they may be closer to coming to power than most of us would like to think.

            Nah. See that is probably what I fear more than anything is those assh*les getting into a postion of power or being deputized by others to enforce martial law policies should martial law be declared by a crazy, dictatorial president.

            I'm not going to a camp. I'm not going to get shot down like a dog. Neither is anyone else if I have a chance to stop it. They may shoot me but I'll take as many of them with me as I can before they do.

            With f*ckers like that running around I damned sure want to be armed.

            But they knew they wouldn't win a fight and attacked me anyway because it was so important to them to draw Jewish blood.

            Before they get a chance to try to spill a drop of Jewish blood perhaps they should be made to spill a bucket-full of their own first. That's my attitude on the subject.

            by Rex Manning on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:05:49 PM PDT

            •  Fair enough, but...

              ...note that while I'm still here, they always got worse than what they gave me, and I didn't need a gun to defend myself. I don't want to make it easier for them to get their hands on the guns they want so badly.

              by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:34:08 PM PDT

  •  Ugh

    Just noticed the typo -- that should be "others shouldn't have to abide by my personal preference."

    by wiscmass on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:50:52 PM PDT

    •  Don't worry

      I figured as much :)

      by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:53:47 PM PDT

•  Basiclly I think that if you want to own a

  firearm you should certainly be allowed to. I am anti-gun but will fight to the death to protect the rights of all of us if,the time came,and you felt the need to own one legally.

  There's alot of different reasons that would drive you toward purchasing one and a large one to me is to protect my family and myself from the inevitable anarchy that the current group of fascists are plunging our country into.

  Not there yet, but everyday seems to be a step closer.

  by flatford39 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:25:04 PM PDT

•  I'm the NRA!

  Naww, not really... I wouldn't give them a dime because they support Republicans... but I do strongly support 2nd amendment rights, for similar reasons to those you outlined.

  "Gun control"... that's so... so... '70's!

  If the MSM could have it their way, every election would be decided solely on the issues of gun control and abortion. That way the powers that be would never truly be threatened, and noone would ask the more pertinent questions.

  by mosesfreeman on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:26:01 PM PDT

•  I think we should all have shotguns...

  ...and be able to carry them around.

  1. very hard to hide. (no sawed off ones)

  2. It's big enough where you'd have a hard time getting a jump on someone.

  3. scaled damage.  Shotguns can be customized via ammo to be non-lethal (rock salt) or blow a hole the size of a basketball through a person.

  so sure, I'm all for shotgun ownership.  hand-guns, eh, not so much.

  by DawnG on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:28:41 PM PDT

  •  Downside is...

    The bad guys don't have much respect for what we "allow".
    Seems to me that the deterrent effect is lost if they can tell at a glance who's armed and who's not, right?

    by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:36:38 PM PDT

    •  I remember a while ago...

      ...there was a discussion around here about home defense, and someone made the comment that of all guns, none make a noise to give one pause like the sound of a shotgun being cocked/loaded/whatever that terminology.  that "ch-ch" sound.

      Plus, I really hate the idea of carry and conceal laws that allow a person to carry a hidden pistol.  If someone's going to carry a gun I want to see it, and I want to keep a very close eye on them, and I want it to have enough kickback to force someone to brace it against their shoulder, giving enough time for me to know exactly where he's aiming for.

      If we have to have guns, I'd rather it be shotguns.

      by DawnG on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:45:52 PM PDT

      •  so do the bad guys

        While the law-abiding folks are busy wrestling with their Mossberg 500 shotguns, they can just pick out someone who obviously doesn't have one and mug him courtesy of their illegal .32 Kel-Tec.

        by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:56:30 PM PDT

        •  never said it was perfect.

          better than bad guys hiding barettas in their belts as they sneak up on you.

          Look, guns are destructive.  If it were up to me they'd have never even been INVENTED.  But if we have to have guns...

          by DawnG on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:42:08 PM PDT

          •  Nobody expects perfection

            But that's the glaring hole in your idea. The bad guy will still have that Beretta hidden in his belt. Making it illegal won't stop him from doing it. Banning Berettas won't keep him from getting one.

            by GoSlash27 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:29:12 AM PDT

  •  The way my friend described it

    is that it's the perfect home protection. No matter your education, background, or language, every burglar knows what THAT NOISE is.

    Much more effective than "who's there?" :)

    by falsified on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:58:04 PM PDT

•  Another vote for the pro-gun faction. n/t

  by gfv6800 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:30:18 PM PDT

•  Downside is...

  The bad guys don't have much respect for what we "allow".
  Seems to me that the deterrent effect is lost if they can tell at a glance who's armed and who's not, right?

  by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:32:10 PM PDT

  •  sorry

    misplaced response

    by GoSlash27 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:36:04 PM PDT

•  So, buy them legally

  store them securely, use them safely (don't shoot your friends in the face). I don't own a gun and haven't for about 40 years. I very occasionally go to the shooting range with friends.

  I don't know if all this makes me "pro-gun" or not. I AM pro peaceful conflict resolution. We need to put more energy into that--not arguing about firearms.

  by RudiB on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:34:21 PM PDT

  •  If we want to win elections in rural

    and semi rural areas we have to change the perceived tune we've been singing about guns.  True or not, our party is perceived as poised to "take the guns away".  This loses us hordes of voters.  If we don't want to do that, we have to let the public know.

    by Urizen on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:42:36 PM PDT

•  I don't like saying I'm pro gun

  as much as pro constitution.  I grew up with guns and have fun shooting bottles.  I think the real disconnect on this issue is that people who didn't grow up with guns don't understand their cultural significance to those who did.  I'm glad our party's getting away from the old kneejerk about this.  If we can convince those of us who live in "red states" that we aren't going to take the guns away, we'll probably see at least a 5 point swing in voters toward us.  In a lot of states that's enough to win.

  by Urizen on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:37:03 PM PDT

•  Gun control does not work

  and I think supporting gun control needlessly costs us votes.  It can only hurt Democrats.  I doubt we would lose even one voter if we stopped discussing gun control.  

  I've had people who should otherwise be Democrats tell me they always vote Republican because they do not want to lose their guns.  It is very hard to explain that we don't want their guns, but I'd rather just forget the whole issue.

  I find it interesting that on most social issues, like crime or drugs we say "lets get to the root cause, lets eliminate poverty, lets educate people."  But when it comes to gun violence, we try to restrict access to guns.  If it was coming from the other side of the aisle, we would probably label it as a band-aid fake solution designed to draw attention from harder solutions, like fighting poverty.    

  by Dakota Dem on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:37:40 PM PDT

  •  Gun control does work.

    Gun bans don't.

    As others have mentioned here... background checks, classes, that sort of thing.  Part of why the NRA is so nuts is that they object even to people being required to demonstrate that they can in fact hit what they're shooting at and know how to handle a gun properly.  I, on the other hand, have no problem with such controls.

    I do, however, have a problem with an outright ban.  I don't trust a government that feels a need to completely disarm its citizens.

    by Corwin Weber on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:48:37 PM PDT

  •  Salient points, DD. n/t

    by gazingoffsouthward on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:36:17 PM PDT

    •  (misplaced response . . . ?)

      by gazingoffsouthward on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:37:49 PM PDT

•  People kill people. Guns are just a tool.

  Those that think it is wrong to be able to defend your self with a gun are pure and simple idiots or dreamers. People will only find another way to kill someone if they can't find a gun. Stop trying to infringe on our RIGHT to bare arms. Stupid brady bill.

  The shadow government would just love to remove guns from society. It would make you very simple to control.

  by Olivebranch on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:39:33 PM PDT

  •  This issue cultivates odd posts like this

    Sorry, but you start off with that "people kill people" crap.  Really, can't believe that you went there.

    Please enlighten everyone on the "shadow government" that can control us if they have our guns.  Seriously, do you think that you having a gun right now does anything to protect you if there is some "shadow government" that wants to run things and make you their bitch?  This isn't a conspiracy site.

    Anyway.  I'm not surprised that there are gun owners and hunters who like to talk about this issue on Kos, but the diarist is mistaken if he/she thinks that he/she speaks for the vast majority of progressives.

    by Nihilvor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:48:48 PM PDT

    •  I would rather have a gun and not need it than

      Need a gun and not have it. It is my right. People who blame the guns for their problems need to take a reality check. If someone is gonna murder someone they will or get caught doing it. Whatever...you provide no basis for your frustration.

      And yea right there are no conspiracies in the world and all is right an well.

      by Olivebranch on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:52:55 PM PDT

      •  Guns are "tools"?

        It's the benign status that you give the gun that makes no sense.  

        It's like this random (rehtorical) person with no urge towards good or bad deeds is put in front of a stone, a gun, an assault weapon, and some napalm and thus can say "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

        It doesn't make sense, and it is not how the world is.   Tools are not necessarily positive;  they are not without their effect.

        And, I still don't get the "shadow government" being stopped because you or your neighbor has a shotgun.

        by Nihilvor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:58:29 PM PDT

        •  Take away your electrcity, and hunt for your food

          See how much you dislike guns then. Your platform shrinks very low in that light.

          One day you may be left in a world without electricty. Do you think you will not need a gun then?

          If so, I think you will be roadkill fast.

          by Olivebranch on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:01:25 PM PDT

          •  They're out to take your electricity!

            

            by Diaries on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:06:29 PM PDT

            •  Yes you will never have to deal with disaster,,,,

              

              by Olivebranch on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:24:29 PM PDT

              •  helpful and compelling

                Now why don't you threaten to shoot him? Isn't that the next "logical" step in the pro-gun argument? Or just start swearing like a moron?

                Guns kill. The only purpose of guns is to kill.

                You lose that argument.

                by JohnGor0 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:07:24 PM PDT

                •  Guns to me are used for food and protection.

                  I am moron because I would hunt my own food and protect my family from attacks? Yes guns kill that is their purpose.

                  I would never threaten to shoot anyone without just cause.

                  argument won.

                  by Olivebranch on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:55:33 PM PDT

                  •  Do you see any movement

                    to make guns illegal on a grand scale?

                    One thing I don't get, here, is when someone writes that they don't like handguns, but are resigned to their being legal, they get pounced on by a loud minority because they EVEN BELIEVE GUNS ARE BAD.

                    You have your guns, so relax. But statistics bear out that guns are overwhelming used against gun owners in crimes.

                    Hunt all you want. I have no use for it, personally. And again, most proposed gun legislation has nothing to do with hunting rifles. Just handguns, and auto matic weapons.

                    by JohnGor0 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:26:35 AM PDT

                    •  Gun control does not work.

                      Criminals will get guns in criminal ways.

                      Gun control just makes it difficult for those in the law abiding class to have extreme difficulty. For example a person who has a felony on their record for carrying a couple ounces of marijuana will not be able to get a gun later in life. Lets go further and say they live in a pretty animal infested area. They have bears and other animals frequenting their area. Now since they have a felony they are just supposed to hit the grizzley bear with a bat? C'mon.. to say there is no use for guns is moronic. Hand gun or rifle. If your in the woods and under attack you may drop your clumpy rifle but at least your side arm is still there just in case.

                      City folk may have no use for guns but most people don't live in the city.

                      by Olivebranch on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:19:58 PM PDT

                      •  There is a middle ground

                        I do agree that drug laws are idiotic. and the current gun laws are idiotic. It makes no sense to outlaw guns in Chicago, when someone could drive right into Indiana, or out of Cook County, and buy a handgun.

                        If a man owns guns, and his wife doesn't have an f.o.i. card, and he dies, the wife automatically is breaking the law by having possession of the guns without an f.o.i. card. Idiotic.

                        Any gun laws regulating who could buy or own a gun (age limit) or regulating the action (fully automatic) have to be national. The NRA forces everyone to water down legislation to ridiculous levels, on a state by state basis, then ridicules all gun legislation.

                        by JohnGor0 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 02:26:39 PM PDT

                  •  p.s.

                    Didn't call you a moron. When someone just starts swearing because someone else does not hold the same viewpoiint, then you will be a moron.

                    by JohnGor0 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:27:34 AM PDT

                    •  That is an opinion not a fact.

                      Just because someone uses a colorful word to describe what one would think of someone else does not by definition make them a moron.

                      Someone who would assume such things would probably fall into the moron class.

                      I still don't know what phrase or word your even refering to as you have been 'so intelligent' as to leave that out. If you are refering to the picture I left and the word 'f*ck' in it then I will tell you it was used to make the meaning sent by it stronger and more felt. I am pretty sure that was accomplished.

                      by Olivebranch on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:48:14 PM PDT

                      •  I replied to the big picture

                        urging someone to drink a cup of shut the fuck up, or something like that.

                        There are two sides of every issue. Just because a whole shitload of us believe that guns are not intrinsically safe and necessary doesn't