The Dems need to forget about gun controll already

[Budarow]

I've about had my fill with the democratic party and gun controll. God only knows how many political elections the dems have lost based solely on their gun-controll position. Yes, yes, I know that cops and kids are killed/injured all the freaking time in the U.S. with hand guns and assault-type rifles, but with so many gun-fan voters willing to vote AGAINST any politician who belongs to a party in favor of some form of gun control, is the fight worth it?

Perhaps the dems should just let every man/woman and teenager have their 357 magnums or whatever their gun of choice is with very little to no regulation. And if someone is injured by a gun...the government gets to have the gun owners house, car and all their assets as a penalty and the gun owner goes to jail for say 5 years hard time.

I'm pretty sure the dems would get a LOT more votes and we would all have lower tax bills. Over time, just the responsible gun owners would want guns and the dealth/injury rates from guns would go way, way down. Just a thougt on getting more votes and paying less taxes.

 

[her209]

People should be allowed to arm themselves with anything they want... including RPGs, tanks, helicopters, etc.

 

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: her209
People should be allowed to arm themselves with anything they want... including RPGs, tanks, helicopters, etc.

I agree. And if someone else is injured/killed by a careless tank/helicopter owner...the law should be clear and firm as to the penelty for being a dolt. Agreed?

 

[plagiarist]

Originally posted by: Budarow
I've about had my fill with the democratic party and gun controll. God only knows how many political elections the dems have lost based solely on their gun-controll position.

Very true.

Yes, yes, I know that cops and kids are killed/injured all the freaking time in the U.S. with hand guns and assault-type rifles

That isn't actually true! I can tell that you're an open minded free thinker, so I encourage you to visit a-human-right.com and thehighroad.org. For one thing, 'assault weapons' are hardly used in crimes. Criminals prefer small, cheap, concealable weapons.

but with so many gun-fan voters willing to vote AGAINST any politician who belongs to a party in favor of some form of gun control, is the fight worth it?

Sure isn't.

Perhaps the dems should just let every man/woman and teenager have their 357 magnums or whatever their gun of choice is with very little to no regulation. And if someone is injured by a gun...the government gets to have the gun owners house, car and all their assets as a penalty and the gun owner goes to jail for say 5 years hard time.

We already have penalties for murder, assault, armed robbery, etc. Extra penalties for using a gun in a crime imply that it's better to be beaten to death with a crowbar or hacked up with a machete than be shot. I take the same approach to laws that I do to programming- let's cut the redundancy. If you cause harm to another human being, you get punished, regardless of how you did it.

I'm pretty sure the dems would get a LOT more votes and we would all have lower tax bills. Over time, just the responsible gun owners would want guns and the dealth/injury rates from guns would go way, way down. Just a thougt on getting more votes and paying less taxes.

Very true. The fact is, a few far-left (Even if you are a democrat, and if you are, you are a discerning one, these organizations are very far to your left) groups distribute complete propaganda regarding firearms, crime, children being injured, and cops. I'd love to get into that in this thread if you'd like to hear more. An example is the .500 smith and wesson, a new large revolver using the .500 cartridge. It's a .50 handgun, it's GIGANTIC, impossible to conceal, it costs a fortune, the ammunition costs a fortune, and handgun control groups went apeshit claiming that S&W was declaring war on police, because the gun will penetrate a "bullet proof" vest. The first fallacy is that any bullet RESISTANT vest is bullet proof. It makes the concept of a gun that defeats it sound so much more nasty and evil.

The truth is that ever since they've been invented, there have always been common sporting calibers that penetrate vests. All centerfire rifles (anything larger than a .22, that is) will penetrate them. They existed before vests, but just wait and see for people like the VPC to push spin on 'rifle ammo' being a threat to police.

Anyway, these groups are incredibly out of touch with reality. The very idea that a gangbanger is going to get a gun in an obscure caliber that costs a fortune to feed, one that requires a great effort to use for even remote accuracy, and one that is impossible to conceal and worth too much to throw away, is ludicrous.

Hah, I got kind of carried away here. Sorry. If you'd like, I'll demolish the assault weapons crime myth, the cops support the sunsetted so-called 'assault weapons ban' myth, and the thousands of kids killed a year by guns myth, next.

 

[plagiarist]

Originally posted by: her209
People should be allowed to arm themselves with anything they want... including RPGs, tanks, helicopters, etc.

Nice straw man, troll. Although at the time of the writing of the second amendment, private citizens owned cannons and the then-equivilant of an aircraft carrier- ENTIRE FREAKING WARSHIPS, I support only allowing private citizens to own weapons that are single-person serviced and operated. That means no mortars, no artillery, no nuclear bombs.

How things should be:

Machinegun? Show that you can use it properly, sign up for the local defense unit in the most remote chance of invasion, drill with the guys four times a year (if the ammo is supplied, people will LOVE this- the worst thing about owning a class 3 NFA is that for all that full auto fun, the ammo is pricey) and you're set.

RPG? Ditto above, with a little more certification because it's a freaking EXPLOSIVE WEAPON.

Quad .50 mounted in the bed of your truck? Gray area between the two, I lean toward the first example. I know a fellow that has one, it cost him several hundred thousand. He's a hit at the full auto ranges.

120mm mortar? Store it at the local defense armory, with complete freedom to check it out and go to the range for training and practice whenever you like as long as you buy the ammo. Same as above.

Light tank? Drive it around town as long as it doesn't screw the roads up, main gun unloaded, ammunition onboard at the discretion of the local commander.

Gangbangers won't be aquiring those items, considering that they're highly expensive and the people that end up aquiring them DO NOT want to let some slimeball steal them. It doesn't make sense to break into the house of a guy who owns machineguns, loves his machineguns, paid a fortune for his machineguns, and knows how to use his machineguns (although chances are he'd use a shotgun for close quarters defense).

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: plagiarist
Nice straw man, troll. Although at the time of the writing of the second amendment, private citizens owned cannons and the then-equivilant of an aircraft carrier- ENTIRE FREAKING WARSHIPS, I support only allowing private citizens to own weapons that are single-person serviced and operated. That means no mortars, no artillery, no nuclear bombs.

The point of the 2nd amendment was to allow its citizens to defend themselves in the event that the government decided to go nuts and start running around with its military. Anyone who is irresponsible with their arms will be dealt with in accordance to the law.

 

[jtusa]

Kerry's antigun stance and his acceptance of the UN who is also extremely antigun is one of the major reasons I did not vote for him or will not vote for a Dem candidate.

Granted, Bush stated he "supported the AWB", etc., but he did absolutely nothing to renew it through congress, which is about the best I can ask for from the Repubs right now. I'd be very happy if he went so far as to repeal the import ban, but I don't that will happen until we get a Libertarian in office.

Messing with gun control is bad not just because it takes away guns, but because it's unConstitutional/tampers with the Bill of Rights and that is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[plagiarist]

Actually, President Bush said he'd sign it if it crossed his desk. Bush signs MOST legislation that goes onto his desk, which is a good thing. If the senate / house put it to him, that means the representatives of the people want it done, and if they're doing their jobs, then it should be the will of most of the people.

In other words, he took a responsible stance. The majority of people in the US were going to punish representatives who pushed the AWB reneweal heavily, so the representatives let it linger and die.

Democracy 1
Gun grabbers 0

"The point of the 2nd amendment was to allow its citizens to defend themselves in the event that the government decided to go nuts and start running around with its military. Anyone who is irresponsible with their arms will be dealt with in accordance to the law. "

That's one of many scenarios it can come into play, if you say that is the only one, you're taking a very narrow view. So you say that an administration preventing free and fair elections, taking tyrannical and unjust actions against the people, preventing the freedom of speech, but not going nuts with the military wouldn't warrant a general uprising?

(Any uprising against the government would hopefully play out as the Historical battle of Athens, TN (Where I grew up, although I'm a native N'yawker), where everyone goes home at the end after the free and fair elections, and no one is tried and hung, for example)

 

[poopaskoopa]

As a gun owner, I just can't take this issue seriously(meaning this issue will not decide my choice of candidates). I priotize issues, and gun control is pretty low on my list. Ban the guns, don't ban the guns, I'd rather they didn't, but it's just not a big deal to me. I've lived with and without them, and living without them, in retrospect, is like living without rollerblades.

It's always disconcerting to see how people whip out the 2nd amendment everytime this comes up while they idly watch the other amendments go down the toilet. No one said you have to fight for all of them, but I dunno.... I guess our priorities are just different.

 

[plagiarist]

Because the second amendment is the fire extinguisher.

There's a couple smouldering cigars in the building, and even a few little flames, but I'd rather see a few more flames than see the fire extinguisher get removed from the scenario.

If a politician won't trust you with guns, he's unfit to hold power. There have been very elegant and brilliant writings on that topic. I suggest you read them. I know you don't really care, but why not look into it a little? It can't hurt. I always make it a point to explore things that I even completely disagree with. Learning new things and challenging my own views is the only way that I know to keep my opinions and values tested, strong, and true.

If there were people trying to ban rollerblades with ludicrous and retarded assertations, vitriol filled people with the singleminded emotion fueled fact absent desire to remove rollerblades from the US, (they HURT THE KIDS, criminals PREFER rollerblades!) I think I'd care about that to. The actual USE of guns isn't as much the issue as it is the fact that they're being attacked and the way they're being attacked and the loonies that are doing it.

 

[zephyrprime]

I disagree. I think what really loses the democrats elections as of late is abortion, not gun control.

 

[Cable God]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I disagree. I think what really loses the democrats elections as of late is abortion, not gun control.

I seriously disagree with that. Look at Gore in 2000. If he wasn't so blatantly AGAINST guns, this whole Bush fiasco would have never happened in the first place. He did NOT get ANY of the gun vote in 2000. If he wasn't so anti, he would have won by a large margin. there are over 20 million members of the NRA, remember that.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Budarow
I've about had my fill with the democratic party and gun controll. God only knows how many political elections the dems have lost based solely on their gun-controll position. Yes, yes, I know that cops and kids are killed/injured all the freaking time in the U.S. with hand guns and assault-type rifles.

More kids die from drowning than guns, but all those hard-core environmentalists continue to oppose bans on natural bodies of water. Do they hate children or what?!? :roll:

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: plagiarist
Nice straw man, troll. Although at the time of the writing of the second amendment, private citizens owned cannons and the then-equivilant of an aircraft carrier- ENTIRE FREAKING WARSHIPS, I support only allowing private citizens to own weapons that are single-person serviced and operated. That means no mortars, no artillery, no nuclear bombs.

The point of the 2nd amendment was to allow its citizens to defend themselves in the event that the government decided to go nuts and start running around with its military. Anyone who is irresponsible with their arms will be dealt with in accordance to the law.

this is true, what good is a local militia against a tyranical govt if the govt has all the good stuff and all the militia has been able to arm itself with is pistols and duck hunting shotguns?

Gun control (or control of any weapon for that matter, minus NBC's of course) is the biggest threat to freedom there is.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I for one, rather enjoyed the near death of gun control inc. after 9-11.

Bush knew the bill would never come to his desk.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: plagiarist
Nice straw man, troll. Although at the time of the writing of the second amendment, private citizens owned cannons and the then-equivilant of an aircraft carrier- ENTIRE FREAKING WARSHIPS, I support only allowing private citizens to own weapons that are single-person serviced and operated. That means no mortars, no artillery, no nuclear bombs.

The point of the 2nd amendment was to allow its citizens to defend themselves in the event that the government decided to go nuts and start running around with its military. Anyone who is irresponsible with their arms will be dealt with in accordance to the law.

this is true, what good is a local militia against a tyranical govt if the govt has all the good stuff and all the militia has been able to arm itself with is pistols and duck hunting shotguns?

Gun control (or control of any weapon for that matter, minus NBC's of course) is the biggest threat to freedom there is.

You make a good argument, but in today's environment, I think the threat to property rights is bigger.

 

[Tom]

What I sincerely wonder about is if there was a Democratic candidate who was pro-gun, agreed with every NRA position, would it make any difference ?

I have my doubts.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Tom
What I sincerely wonder about is if there was a Democratic candidate who was pro-gun, agreed with every NRA position, would it make any difference ?

I have my doubts.

Many such Democrats have been elected in the South. The real question is whether they'd ever emerge alive from the Democratic Presidential primary process.

I have my doubts.

 

[glugglug]

I agree. We need less gun control in the blue states. Time to arm-up for the upcoming revolution!

 

[imported_tss4]

What if we just left it to the state or localities to decide? The North east with its denser population and high levels of inner city crime could put in gun control laws while the rural areas, especially the south and midwest could do with out such restrictions. Couldn't that work? Seems like a reasonable position to me for the democrats. Kind of a new age state's rights approach for the Dems.

 

[BarneyFife]

All the rednecks need their guns to catch squirrels and racoons for dinner.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: tss4
What if we just left it to the state or localities to decide? The North east with its denser population and high levels of inner city crime could put in gun control laws while the rural areas, especially the south and midwest could do with out such restrictions. Couldn't that work? Seems like a reasonable position to me for the democrats. Kind of a new age state's rights approach for the Dems.

That is a nice idea and all, if it actually worked. Chicago has basically outlawed all firearms in the city limits.

They managed to regain the title of murder capital of the US in 2003.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jtusa4

I'd be very happy if he went so far as to repeal the import ban, but I don't that will happen until we get a Libertarian in office.

That and reopen NFA weapons registration.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: Budarow
I agree. And if someone else is injured/killed by a careless tank/helicopter owner...the law should be clear and firm as to the penelty for being a dolt. Agreed?

True enough.

Actually right now there are only a few states with laws against owning tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, or RPGs.

If they have the larger weapons they would be classified as destructive devices (the weapons themselves, not the vehilce its mounted on) and it would be a $200 tax.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: plagiarist
Nice straw man, troll. Although at the time of the writing of the second amendment, private citizens owned cannons and the then-equivilant of an aircraft carrier- ENTIRE FREAKING WARSHIPS, I support only allowing private citizens to own weapons that are single-person serviced and operated. That means no mortars, no artillery, no nuclear bombs.

The point of the 2nd amendment was to allow its citizens to defend themselves in the event that the government decided to go nuts and start running around with its military. Anyone who is irresponsible with their arms will be dealt with in accordance to the law.

But they didn't have the kind of weapons we do now where you can take out a whole block with a single crazy person. It's hard to balance.

Edit: But I agree with your point, the only problem is keeping out of the hands of people who are almost insane and will blow up your house because you cut them off.