Gun control.

[techs]

Interesting that gun control has not been mentioned almost at all in this election cycle.
I have been reading that the Democratic party is actually revising its policy on gun control. Charles Schumer who is in charge of this years Congressional elections for the Democrats (he's their Karl Rove) has quietly been working to line up Democratic support for the change in policy.
This is their new policy:
Guns such as machine guns and assualt weapons are national issues and can and should be regulated and highly restricted at the national level.
Handguns and ordinary rifles and shotguns are state issues and should be left up to the states. After all New York would certainly have different needs and priorites on guns than say Wyoming.
Look for the Democrats who run for President in 2008 to start using the new plan.

 

[Stunt]

All unpopular party positions should be pushed onto the states.

It's the only way to dodge a political bullet.

The Republicans can do the same with abortion and gay marriage and gain far more than gun legislation.

 

[ProfJohn]

Nice to see the Democrats following the lead of the Republicans

I think the Democrats are doing this because an anti-gun stance doesn't win them any votes, but it does cost them votes.
Besides they already have the anti-gun vote in their pocket, why not try to appeal to the fence sitters.

Stunt you may be right about getting more voters, but abortion and gay marriage are far more central to the Republican platform than gun control is to Democrats.
Since abortion and gay marriage are part of the "family values" thing that the Republicans are so big on, asking them to give them up would be like asking the Democrats to give up social spending as an issue, never going to happen.

On abortion, after banning partial birth abortion, I see no benefit for the Republicans to push for more.

On gay marriage, the main issue is courts which over ride the votes of the people. In state after state we have seen so called "pro marriage" bills passed by popular vote and the left just goes to court to have the laws thrown out.
Let the voters decide what they want to do. Maybe in time people will change their mind and allow gay marriage.

 

[1EZduzit]

It's about time the Dem's wised up on gun control. Their desire to force gun control down the people's throats was largely responsible for the resurgence of the GOP in the first place, at least IMO.

 

[techs]

I think its part of the Western States strategy where the Dems see big gains possible. They are really hurt by their gun control stance in an area where hunting is big and guns are necessary self defense tolls against wild animals and in home protection where police are far away from peoples homes.

 

[Lemon law]

Au contrare----its the war on terrorism thats killed the NRA lobby---that and the fact the the dems have learned they are being killed on gun control.

But the NRA used to be a group of responsible hunters---and led the fight to ban machine guns in the hands of indivuals---only later did the NRA become a money generating
lobbying combine that started advoacting no gun control at all--with even private citizens having the right to own any piece of military ordinace useless for hunting---including fully automatic weapons and other even more dangerous stuff.

Now I ask you responsible anti-gun control types---do you want some terrorist to come to the USA with mere money---and then be able to arm themselves with machine guns they can buy at any local gun show?---and in quanities only limited by cash on hand.---that and the school shootings has somewhat stolen the NRA thunder. And with no one beating the drums to ban all firearms, the NRA makes less noise now.

And don't get me wrong---I am a hunter also---but I never considered the lobbiest NRA as being something I could support as a positive national force.

 

[halik]

"Assault rifles" is a BS made-up term intended to bring in soccer mom votes. There are semi auto rifles and automatic rifles...

 

[1EZduzit]

I don't think you can characterize the NRA as just being a bunch of hunters.

Besides, the "gun contol" types wanted everybodie's handguns, which people have a right to have for their defense. All they did was "shoot" themselves in the foot.

 

[PrinceofWands]

In general the Dem's have little choice in this area. They were pretty seriously affected by this in the last elections. There is a very large voting block that has refused to vote Dem solely because of gun control issues (I was even kicked out of multiple gun rights organizations for my stand against Bushco in the 2000 and 2004 elections, even though many of the members agreed that if it weren't for gun control issues they would have voted Democrat). The Dem's have effectively handed over those votes in exchange for the votes of emotional irrationals - though, to be fair, it seems there are more emotional irrationals in America than gun owners.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
---do you want some terrorist to come to the USA with mere money---and then be able to arm themselves with machine guns they can buy at any local gun show?---and in quanities only limited by cash on hand.---that and the school shootings has somewhat stolen the NRA thunder. And with no one beating the drums to ban all firearms, the NRA makes less noise now.

Yes, if that's the only way to allow possession of high quality weapons to the public as well. I will not sacrifice any liberty for any amount of safety - real or imagined. I fully accept the consequences of that stand.

I'm not sure the school shootings are minimizing the NRA; in fact, I've been seeing more power to the NRA on the horizon because of them. Eventually people will begin to see that emotional outbursts and illusory protections do no good, and in fact invite harm. Once that becomes real it is entirely possible that reason will take over and that will grant all the thunder the NRA could ever want. Probably more.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs
Interesting that gun control has not been mentioned almost at all in this election cycle.
I have been reading that the Democratic party is actually revising its policy on gun control. Charles Schumer who is in charge of this years Congressional elections for the Democrats (he's their Karl Rove) has quietly been working to line up Democratic support for the change in policy.
This is their new policy:
Guns such as machine guns and assualt weapons are national issues and can and should be regulated and highly restricted at the national level.
Handguns and ordinary rifles and shotguns are state issues and should be left up to the states. After all New York would certainly have different needs and priorites on guns than say Wyoming.
Look for the Democrats who run for President in 2008 to start using the new plan.

I don't care about any plan as long as they blame the finger and not the trigger.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: techs
Interesting that gun control has not been mentioned almost at all in this election cycle.
I have been reading that the Democratic party is actually revising its policy on gun control. Charles Schumer who is in charge of this years Congressional elections for the Democrats (he's their Karl Rove) has quietly been working to line up Democratic support for the change in policy.
This is their new policy:
Guns such as machine guns and assualt weapons are national issues and can and should be regulated and highly restricted at the national level.
Handguns and ordinary rifles and shotguns are state issues and should be left up to the states. After all New York would certainly have different needs and priorites on guns than say Wyoming.
Look for the Democrats who run for President in 2008 to start using the new plan.

I don't care about any plan as long as they blame the finger and not the trigger.

Yeah, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

 

[Stunt]

Pretty sure Guns kill people, Drugs are addictive, Cigarettes are poison.

I'm laughing at the Liberals attempting to look like moderates on this issue meanwhile on cigarettes taking the opposite stance. :laugh:

 

[Termagant]

There has been recent news on this subject. Alot of big city mayors are working on a coalition to try to crack down on illegal guns in cities. I know Bloomberg and other mayors in the Northeast are part of this effort. I know the NRA and gun owners may be aghast but the situation in inner cities is ridiculous. Once a week a child inside a home or car is killed by random stray bullets from drivebys. And of course the vast majority of these guns are illegally possessed, alot of the shooters are felons already anyway.

 

[piasabird]

Criminals seem to have no problems at all getting guns. Only honest taxpayers have a hard time getting a gun. In my state of Illinois you have to have a photo ID, and submit your fingerprints to get a background investigation just to get a gun permit. In some states if you have a driver's license you can buy a firearm. So there is not clear federal policy on any requirements for gun ownership.

The requirements for purchasing a firearm are different in every state. This encourages people to cross state lines and then purchase firearms in neighboring states.

Maybe what we need is a mandatory death sentence for any crime committed with an illegally obtained firearm, and also more indepth investigation as to how weapons are acquired and stiffer enforcement of gun laws.

You can probably get a license to sell firearms without even a storefront. This enables no way to investigate these free-lance gun dealers. It is like there is no one guarding the hen-house. In fact, the feds may not even know where the hen-house is. People are getting the guns from somewhere, but it seems like no one is trying to track the dealers down and get rid of the source.

Then there are people who buy guns one part at a time at gun shows and then assemble them piecemeal.

Then there are probably lots of guns that are just lost from inventory. Some guy at the docks just sticks the wrong skid on a truck and then someone gets the shipment illegaly. If you make thousands of weapons a few of them are bound to get stolen or just rerouted a few at a time by inside workers.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Maybe the Dems are simply wising up to the fact that most of recent gun control efforts have been usless crap anyway.

I support some commonsense rules on gun ownership and am a champion of firearms training. I agree that terms like "assault rifles", "cop-killer bullits", and references to the theoretical rate of fire for semiauto weapons are a cheap trick for generating an emotional response from the ignorant so it looks as though the politicions are doing something meaningfull. It always angers me when I hear the that kind of crap.

I am old enough to remember when the NRA really was an orginazation for and of firearms enthusiasts. It seemed to me that things changed with the rise of the nutcase militias. Ruby Ridge and Waco really seemed to spur it on, as some of the more extreme elements actualy found an audience. ( I am waiting for a resurgence of the extreme voices in light of the recent revelations of government survailance and secret detention without charges, etc.. This was a common theme before, but without evidence.)

And sorry, the school shootings of recent years have little to do with guns and gun laws. In many parts of the country until perhaps the end of the '60s, it was common for pickup trucks driven to school to have a hunting rifle in a gun rack. And yet, students weren't shooting up their schools. Poor parenting, inept, litigation fearing school administrators, and the media are the largest contributors to the problem IMHO. The remedy is not to be found in new firearms laws.

So, I am guessing (hoping) that the Dems have finally realized that they can't fool enough people anymore with buzz words and BS.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
It's about time the Dem's wised up on gun control. Their desire to force gun control down the people's throats was largely responsible for the resurgence of the GOP in the first place, at least IMO.

good point!!!

 

[judasmachine]

Americans like their guns, so any party claiming to represent their people will support gun ownership. Simple as that. It just took the Dems a long time to realize that Americans love their guns.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Maybe the Dems are simply wising up to the fact that most of recent gun control efforts have been usless crap anyway.

I support some commonsense rules on gun ownership and am a champion of firearms training. I agree that terms like "assault rifles", "cop-killer bullits", and references to the theoretical rate of fire for semiauto weapons are a cheap trick for generating an emotional response from the ignorant so it looks as though the politicions are doing something meaningfull. It always angers me when I hear the that kind of crap.

I am old enough to remember when the NRA really was an orginazation for and of firearms enthusiasts. It seemed to me that things changed with the rise of the nutcase militias. Ruby Ridge and Waco really seemed to spur it on, as some of the more extreme elements actualy found an audience. ( I am waiting for a resurgence of the extreme voices in light of the recent revelations of government survailance and secret detention without charges, etc.. This was a common theme before, but without evidence.)

And sorry, the school shootings of recent years have little to do with guns and gun laws. In many parts of the country until perhaps the end of the '60s, it was common for pickup trucks driven to school to have a hunting rifle in a gun rack. And yet, students weren't shooting up their schools. Poor parenting, inept, litigation fearing school administrators, and the media are the largest contributors to the problem IMHO. The remedy is not to be found in new firearms laws.

So, I am guessing (hoping) that the Dems have finally realized that they can't fool enough people anymore with buzz words and BS.

LOL shows what you know. The outcry was because it was a "left-wing, gay-loving, Democrat with a lesbian wife" who was president during Waco and Ruby Ridge. And because Clinton and Democrats at the time were throwing around talk of more gun regulation.

Now it is a Republican in power, with a Republican Congress, and gun legislation is nonexistent. And the people being thrown into prison are brown skinned America haters, whether they're citizen or not. So of course there is no outcry.

 

[extra]

I honestly don't understand why anyone cares if individuals can own machine guns or not.

I'm all for not letting people own tanks, artillery, rocket launchers, etc but...

If you look past the "scariness" of a machine gun you will know that they aren't the best for actually killing people with.

Did people learn nothing from the sniper attacks in the DC area?

Set up an auditorium with say, 100 realistic human target dummies. Have 2 shooters. One guy with an automatic military style weapon and a clip or two of ammo. One guy with a .338 and a scope, bolt action.

Give them a minute. Who do you think will do more damage? The guy with the hunting rifle. The guy with the machine gun will just waste tons of ammo.

Why don't our infantry use full-auto firing modes much anymore? It simply isn't as effective in a hand-held weapon.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: piasabird

You can probably get a license to sell firearms without even a storefront. This enables no way to investigate these free-lance gun dealers. It is like there is no one guarding the hen-house. In fact, the feds may not even know where the hen-house is. People are getting the guns from somewhere, but it seems like no one is trying to track the dealers down and get rid of the source.

Then there are people who buy guns one part at a time at gun shows and then assemble them piecemeal.

Then there are probably lots of guns that are just lost from inventory. Some guy at the docks just sticks the wrong skid on a truck and then someone gets the shipment illegaly. If you make thousands of weapons a few of them are bound to get stolen or just rerouted a few at a time by inside workers.

Actually you are required to have a storefront to have an FFL, or dealer's license. The ATF did away with "garage store" owners many moons ago. Currently FFL holders must have a store front, be open for business, be open for inspection, etc. The ATF will visit you once a year to make sure everything is kosher. My dad used to have his FFL and let it expire when the ATF changed the rules.

As far as putting them together a piece at a time, you still have to have the receiver done legally. So buy whatever parts you want, you still can't get around 1 piece not being called in.

Which leads to what will happen...people learned this last time around. If there is another Assault Weapons Ban or .50 cal ban, there will be more sales of them in a month than you've seen in the past 10 years combined...

The only part of a gun that is considered the "firearm" part is the receiver. That's the part with the serial # that goes on the form when purchased. Receivers cost very little compared to the whole gun. So in the case of an AR15, the receiver runs about $100, compared to the complete rifle running about $700+.

You'll see lots of folks buying receivers in bulk, I know I will. I wouldn't hesitate to take out a 25-50k loan to buy up receivers. Imagine what they'd be worth in 10 years.

When the .50cal ban passed in California, Serbu, a manufacturer, offered receivers at a discounted price to CA residents. A rifle was like $2250, and they were selling the receiver for something like $600. They sold more receivers in 2 months prior to the ban taking effect than they had ever sold in CA.

Certainly shooting yourself in the foot...Any sweeping ban will just result in a surge in sales of the very thing they are banning.

 

[TravisT]

If you take away the amendment, regardless of what type of gun it is, you will find that it is only those who have the drive and desire to kill someone with the guns. Does a murderer really obey the law? You are just taking away from those who would do no harm.