Tarantulas
 
Thu 22 Apr, 2004 11:08 pm
April 22, 2004, 9:13 a.m.

By John R. Lott Jr.

John Kerry doesn't want to alienate gun owners. Just this past weekend, during the NRA's annual convention, Kerry's campaign issued a statement that the senator "is a lifelong hunter, supports the Second Amendment and will defend hunting rights." Previously, before the Iowa caucuses, Kerry even took time out for a well-publicized pheasant shoot.

Of course, Kerry wasn't alone in speaking out in favor of the Second Amendment. The most remarkable aspect of the Democratic presidential primaries this year was the universal agreement by candidates on guns. All the Democrats claimed that the Second Amendment guaranteed people the right to own guns.

Possibly, with all this agreement, it is not surprising to learn that last year Democratic pollster Mark Penn produced surveys showing that if Democrats didn't show "respect for the Second Amendment and support gun safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the Second Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on." Remember, Bill Clinton and Democratic strategists are on the record as saying that too strong a stand for gun control probably cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.

Yet the whole notion of marketing Kerry as sympathetic to gun owners has always been a tough sell. For someone like Howard Dean, the question was at least debatable. For Kerry, however, gun-control organizations have rated him as having a perfect record on gun control over his entire political career. Even this spring, when legislation to rein in abusive lawsuits against gun makers was voted on by the Senate, Kerry consistently supported gun-control efforts.

In January, the policy directors for the Democratic presidential campaigns pitched their candidates at an AEI-sponsored breakfast in Washington. Given their candidates' stated support for the right of individuals to own guns, they were asked where their candidates would draw the line on reasonable restrictions. Where do they stand on, say, the bans on handgun ownership in Chicago and the District of Columbia?

Only Joe Lieberman's representative answered the question. The now-former Democratic candidate "would oppose an outright ban on handguns, and he is not afraid to say so." And the others? Dean's senior advisor, Maria Echaveste, refused to be pinned down, because that would be giving in to "wedge-issue" politics "as opposed to really talking about values that are fundamental to all candidates and to the American people." Representatives for Kerry, Edwards, and Clark would not respond.

Supporting "reasonable restrictions" sounds moderate, but is an ownership ban "reasonable"? And, if so, what exactly does guaranteeing an individual right really mean?

Polling may have convinced Senator Kerry to change his rhetoric, but when he can't even "oppose an outright ban on handguns," the rhetoric is pretty empty.



Link

With the thousands of gun control laws in existence these days, advocates of gun contol keep finding more "loopholes" to close. The final loophole that gun control advocates want to close, of course, is civilian ownership of firearms.

Senator Kerry managed to completely avoid the issue of whether the people should be able to own guns. And the Second Amendment is not about "hunting rights."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 19,669 • Replies: 310
Topic Closed
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2004 11:13 pm
Re: Glorifying Guns?
Tarantulas wrote:
Remember, Bill Clinton and Democratic strategists are on the record as saying that too strong a stand for gun control probably cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.


With that close of an election almost anything can be said to have cost him.

My favorite reason is that he didn't promise me nukes.
0 Replies
 
emclean
 
  1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2004 11:27 am
craven, if it will help you to lay foo the nukes, you get the fissionable, and the solid explosives, i will work on the electronics package, deal.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2004 01:34 pm
And thus able2know.com becomes the newest member of the Nuclear Club.
0 Replies
 
emclean
 
  1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2004 02:08 pm
Tarantulas, can you show us some nice desert to test in?
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2004 07:28 pm
Personally, I think it's been such a big issue that people have struggled to become more informed.
I know that I have changed my stance, thanks to my oldest son. Perhaps Kerry has found the middle ground that gets blotted out by both sides.
As an aside,
I find it curious that righties, when prodded, come up with their main reason for gun ownership as "protecting ourselves from the government if the need arises" (in so many words) yet at the same time, they're gung-ho for letting that same governmet kill people via the death penalty. So you don't trust the government to protect you, but you will trust them to execute a fellow citizen!
It just don't jibe.
0 Replies
 
emclean
 
  1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2004 08:09 pm
suzy just what would you consiter "reasonable" or the middle ground when it come to gun controle?
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Fri 23 Apr, 2004 09:51 pm
I don't know enough to really say.
My son, who owns a Ruger and is a Liberal, sent me a bunch of what he called "pro-gun propaganda" (although not the extremist NRA stuff)to convince me that the gun control lobby is employing scare tactics as well.
For example, when you hear the term "automatic assault weapon", it is generally not what a person not into guns would think it is. He explained it all to me but not enough so I could explain it to you. Too technical for me to retain, but suffice to say, my son is gifted, brilliant, and a liberal, so I'll take his word for it.
Now, how about a comment on my query? Smile
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 06:51 am
In 1992, the U.S. federal government conducted a military siege of a rural Idaho family, ultimately killing Randy Weaver's dog, son and wife. Attempting to infiltrate a white supremacist group, the BATF entrapped Weaver into selling them two shotguns. When he refused to cooperate with them, federal agents lied in order to get support for their retaliation. Four hundred armed federal agents conducted a siege of the Weavers' mountain home, first killing Randy Weaver's dog, then his son, then his wife. In a 1993 trial, Randy Weaver and his friend were found innocent of weapons and murder charges. The Justice Department's own report recommended criminal prosecution of federal agents; the surviving Weavers won $3.1 million in civil damages. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi-- who shot Vicki Weaver in the head while she was standing in the cabin doorway, holding her baby in her arms--wascharged with voluntary manslaughter by the local Idaho prosecutor. The federal government, though, leapt to Horiuchi's defense, because he was obeying an order. But the Nuremberg and My Lai prosecutions have established that "I vas just following orders" is no excuse for killing innocent people. The license-to-kill orders were so outrageous that other FBI snipers at the scene -- for example, the SWAT team from Denver -- agreed among themselves that the license-to-kill order should not be obeyed. The Denver agents chose to disobey the unconstitutional order, and instead to stick with the traditional rules of engagement. On the other hand, the Weavers were not exactly the best neighbors one could ask for and most likely devout racists but as far as I can see were not in violation of any law. We then have a situation were the government is the acting terrorist with the victims being the citizens acting in self-defense.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 07:32 am
suzy wrote:
For example, when you hear the term "automatic assault weapon", it is generally not what a person not into guns would think it is.


This is, methinks, a huge problem in the whole debate. Just like anything else, the more you learn about the specifics you find that there is terminology that is used by the general populace that is inaccurate or "loose". I think people that aren't famaliar with firearms tend to any "assult weapon" is an automatic which is far from the case.

Quote:
Now, how about a comment on my query? Smile


Why do you assume that all "righties" are pro-death penalty? Also, isn't there a significant difference between someone have a constitutionally correct trial, being found guilty and sentenced to death and summary executions conducted by the police at the time of arrest? Most of the people that talk about protecting themselves from government are talking about government actions that exceed their Constitutional authority.

How do you "lefties" justify empowering the government to seize your property against your will with the ideals of enhancing "civil liberties" and "individual freedom"? Those don't exactly jibe either.

Does that adress your query? Wink
0 Replies
 
greenumbrella
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 08:30 am
Since the Australian government confiscated most fire arms, the home invasion rate (especially in rural Australia) has skyrocketed, prompting many Aussies to break the law and own a fire arm for personal protection.

I have long believed that one of the reasons your government can't go all out and usurp the rights guaranteed under the American Constitution is the knowledge there are 200 million guns in the USA.

Fear keeps your government at bay.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 09:07 am
Fishin,
So sorry. I didn't mean all righties, I was referring to righties who use that "defense" for wanting no gun laws and being able to have whatever they want. It has been my experience that a majority believe so. No offense intended.

"Constitutionally Correct" trials have convicted, and then sometimes killed, people who are innocent. That's putting a lot of trust and good faith in the government! But the central message of so-called "gun nuts" is that there is a need to protect themselves when our government turns on them!I'm just saying, call a spade a spade. But to do that, one would have to admit a bit of hypocrisy!

"How do you "lefties" justify empowering the government to seize your property against your will with the ideals of enhancing "civil liberties" and "individual freedom"?"
What are you saying here? That if your property is ever claimed under eminent domain, you're gonna come out shooting? I don't think that will get you very far. Smile If you're referring specifically to seizing weapons, I've never heard of any plans to do so, or that terminology of civil liberties and individual freedom used to object to such. Gun control, to me, is an attempt to limit what kind of weapons one can own, and to impose some sort of safety standards on them, as well as having them registered so that one can trace the owner in the event of a crime, and possibly to see if anyone is building up an arsenal that may be of concern to the townsfolk.
0 Replies
 
emclean
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 10:26 am
As to your query, I have no question that if the "government" ever comes after me, I will louse. I have guns for shooting sports. I feel there is a strong argument for guns to be owned for defense. The biggest safety standard that is needed is training. No device on a gun will do any good if the person who has it doesn't know how, or wont use it.
Seizing all guns is talked about by some of the "gun control" groups, (if memory serves) handgun control inc. has stated in the past that it's ultimate goal is to get rid of all privately hold guns.
Registering the guns I don't know about. It would make HCI goal easier to do, and that is why legal gun owners are nervous about it.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 11:53 am
Yeah, it would make it easier, but there are good arguments from both sides on registration. Confused
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 10:35 pm
emclean wrote:
Tarantulas, can you show us some nice desert to test in?

As far as I'm concerned we can nuke the Painted Desert in northern Arizona. We drove through there once on the way to Idaho, and there were such weird colors all over that we were creeped out by it and haven't been back since. Of course, the radiation would probably interact with the strange elements in the soil and create giant Gila Monsters.

suzy wrote:
I find it curious that righties, when prodded, come up with their main reason for gun ownership as "protecting ourselves from the government if the need arises" (in so many words) yet at the same time, they're gung-ho for letting that same governmet kill people via the death penalty. So you don't trust the government to protect you, but you will trust them to execute a fellow citizen!
It just don't jibe.

One of the reasons the Founding Fathers had for gun ownership was defending yourself from an unjust government. Another reason was defending the country from foreign invaders. And another reason was that they just flat didn't like the European government policy of prohibiting the peasants from owning weapons. As Emclean pointed out, the government now has better weapons than the citizens do. However, I wouldn't want to be an army invading the US. No soldier would dare to get out of his armored personnel carrier (did you ever see the movie Red Dawn?). My main reason for gun ownership is self defense. I look at every single argument against gun ownership and substitute the word "self defense" for the word "gun." That puts a new light on things.

As for the death penalty, I believe it's justified in extreme situations. A friend once said that it's the same as retroactive self defense for the victim. And in some cases, a crime is so extreme that we as a society must revoke the criminal's right to keep breathing our oxygen.

suzy wrote:
For example, when you hear the term "automatic assault weapon", it is generally not what a person not into guns would think it is. He explained it all to me but not enough so I could explain it to you. Too technical for me to retain, but suffice to say, my son is gifted, brilliant, and a liberal, so I'll take his word for it.

Late in World War II, the Germans created a fully-automatic rifle called the StG 44 "Sturmgewehr." The word "Sturmgewehr" in German means "assault rifle." Here's a Wikipedia article about assault rifles.

The term "assault weapon" came into being in 1994 when the "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted. Here's a Wikipedia article about "assault weapons." Basically, an "assault weapon" is anything that looks scary or militaristic to people who are unfamiliar with guns. Here's an article about the "Assault Weapons Ban." It was nothing more than a "feel good" measure that helped no one and hurt legitimate gun owners who use their weapons for (guess what?) self defense.

The term "semiautomatic" refers to a gun that fires one round for each trigger pull. The term "automatic" refers to a gun that fires more than one round for each trigger pull. Fully automatic guns have been illegal in the United States, except by special permit, since 1934.

Hope that helps. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 11:02 pm
greenumbrella wrote:
Since the Australian government confiscated most fire arms, the home invasion rate (especially in rural Australia) has skyrocketed, prompting many Aussies to break the law and own a fire arm for personal protection.


This is news to me. What's the source of your information?
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Sun 25 Apr, 2004 10:02 am
"As for the death penalty, I believe it's justified in extreme situations"
I would say the same, except that the point is, many who've been executed were later found innocent. So we're trusting the gov't to KILL, and trusting that they do the right thing. But we don't trust the gov't enough to lay down our own arms, you see what I'm saying?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Sun 25 Apr, 2004 11:54 am
I happen to own a buncha guns, ranging from muzzle loaders through fairly sophisticated, expensive, high powered hunting arms, with a few pistols of various architecture tossed in. While I certainy would have no hesitation if it came to the use of a firearm for self or home protection, that consideration is just about at the bottom of the list. I enjoy hunting and target shooting (both plinkin' and organized, sanctioned competition), I load most of my own ammo, I do a little personal gunsmithin', I appreciate and admire well-made machinery, and I have a few pieces of historical/collector interest. Lotsa folks around here are pretty much the same. Last violent crime hereabouts was an assault with a golf club ... a pitching wedge, to be exact. I ain't fond of golf or golfers, and I question why there isn't more concern about protecting us all from irresponible, or even criminal, club wielders. And then there are baseball bats ... now, there's a weapon of positively prehistoric standing, clearly a refinement of humankind's very first assault weapon. Just because a baseball bat can be used in a sporting application in no way diminishes the lethality of the device, should it fall into the wrong hands ... where's the outrage?
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Sun 25 Apr, 2004 12:48 pm
Mr.P was a member of the NRA. He likes to "plink" and has an appreciation for historical weapons. He quit the NRA after one year because he said it ought to be called the National Handguns Association based on the apparent interests of the readers of its magazine... a publication that is extraordinarily slanted politically. Who needs that when you're trying to learn more about what is essentially a hobby?

I think there should be no restrictions on owning weapons as guaranteed by the Constitution, however felons should neither own nor have access to them (a law that should be better enforced). Non-citizens should be under some restrictions and all arms should be registered.

PS -- I don't believe a government should offer the death penalty either.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Sun 25 Apr, 2004 01:14 pm
I ain't real fond lately of the NRA either, but Ive been a Life Member since I was a Boyscout. I think I stay on any more just to take advantage of associate discounts, and to irritate 'em with my poll responses and member votes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Glorifying Guns?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 12:52:53
▲ ▼