Forum Thread

Democrats are not taking away your guns!

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 34 1 2 3 Next
  • sbfriedman
    2010-10-30 06:46:39 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Recent article shows that the NRA is actually endorsing several democrats for the upcoming election (58 to be exact).  The NRA is a bipartisan organization that backs and supports the rights of the second amendment.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/nra-backs-house-democrats/

    Given this, what more proof do we need that the Dems aren't trying to take our guns away.  At the very least, the support of the NRA is very helpful to the democrat party and can change their image against owning guns thus swaying voters.  Why wouldn't they?
  • that guy in Arizona
    2012-04-25 11:31:18 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    sb:



    The New York Times this morning published a letter by a hunter that proves why the NRA and the Republican Party actually don't understand what hunters REALLY want:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/opinion/i-hunt-but-i-oppose-the-nra.html?src=...p
  • Account Deleted
    2012-04-28 10:12:13 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Post Removed by Moderators
    The decision was made to remove this post (but not delete it) from this thread by a moderator -- but we still allow members to see it if they wish. Please note that some members may have replied to this post later in this discussion thread before moderators decided to remove it. You can choose to see what was removed here: View Removed Post
  • Codejack
    2012-05-06 09:41:05 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I own guns, I hunt, I support gun rights, but the NRA are a bunch of nutcases.

    Of course we need reasonable gun laws; I do happen to think that many of the gun laws we have and have had in the past were misguided (the assault weapons ban, for example), but the NRA is actively trying to increase gun violence in this country.

    I am against concealed carry (actually, I am against handguns in general), but I think that you should be able to walk around with a rifle slung over your shoulder. I also think that ammunition should be tracked, if not necessarily restricted.
  • gymrat22
    2012-05-21 06:21:46 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Codejack Wrote: I own guns, I hunt, I support gun rights, but the NRA are a bunch of nutcases.

    Of course we need reasonable gun laws; I do happen to think that many of the gun laws we have and have had in the past were misguided (the assault weapons ban, for example), but the NRA is actively trying to increase gun violence in this country.

    I am against concealed carry (actually, I am against handguns in general), but I think that you should be able to walk around with a rifle slung over your shoulder. I also think that ammunition should be tracked, if not necessarily restricted.

      I am in this camp. I own weapons, don't care for handguns(they are notoriously inaccurate outside of fifty feet) although I have one(.357 revolver) and don't hunt (skeet and trap).Yes,the NRA is a bunch of self servers who are trying to fan the flames of scare tactics,to keep their jobs mainly.If the nation as a whole realized that most democrats,along with most republicans support responsible weapon ownership...the NRA would be out of business.
        Tracking ammo might prove to be a logistics nightmare,though,I see where it makes sense.Have no idea how to implement something like that though.
      The reason the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in there,wasn't so much to protect us from violent criminals(they didn't have a lot of that back then) they put it in there as the LAST resort against a government that turned tyrannical.That usurped our rights,that sold congress,and our freedoms,rigged elections,passed laws preventing the PEOPLE from having access to redress....etc.That's what it's for. I admit,it also discourages the violent criminal type,but that is only a secondary benefit.And I pray,a lot,we never have to resort to the 2nd to re-take our country.But that's what it's in there for.Founding Fathers...looking hundreds of years into the future,with a good grasp on human tendencies...gave us a last resort out of falling to tyranny.
      You don't hear that line much from the NRA types.
  • that guy in Arizona
    2012-05-21 02:55:32 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    gymrat (and Codejack




    Very good analysis from both of you.

    I've never owned a gun in my life, and probably never will, but fully support gun owners
    like you who favor reasonable gun controls.

    If the general public were aware of the COST of gunshot wounds, it's possible that at least some of the ALEC written gun laws that have been passed the last few years wouldn't have seen the light of day.

    I stumbled upon an article the other day about the true cost of gunshot wounds in the Science Direct Journal.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00014575/29/3

    The Journal included a booklet titled "Accident Analysis and Prevention", which cites the fact that gunshot wounds in this country cost an astonishing $126 billion a year, and gunshot wound rates rise linearly with gun ownership.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457597000079

    I still read the Chicago Tribune on line every day, and have discovered that shootings in Chicago are practically a daily occurrence (due to gang activity in the city). Since most of those gunshot wounds get treated at taxpayer expense, it's clear that better controls are still needed there, as well as in other cities.

    You're also absolutely correct that you won't hear that argument much from the NRA types (like Wayne LaPierre). His address at this year's NRA convention (which Mitt Romney attended) makes for some pretty scary reading:

    http://home.nra.org/pdf/Wayne_LaPierre_CPAC_2012.pdf

  • Ariegur
    2012-05-22 12:23:43 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I do not and never have owned a gun.  That does not mean that I favor taking guns from those who hunt, although I find that sport something I will never understand.  The gun is a dangerous weapon when used by people who have anger management problems, a bit short of a pack of cigarettes, or people for whom the gun is a substitute for adequate natural resources.  I keep reading the second amendment and it seems the purpose was for people to have guns to defend the nation in case of attack - there being no standing army.  We have  a police force and a national guard and regular army.  We dont need to have citizens at the ready in case of attack.  If each was to react in case of national emergency we would be inviting chaos.  If we consider the Second Amendment a direction, then why not pass a law requiring each and every household in the US to own or possess at least one gun so that we could be on the ready in case a nation such as Mali decided to attack us.  Remember the story of "The Mouse that Roared".  I live in Arizona where the political leaders act as if Billy the KId was just around the corner.  I was in the Supermarket and standing on the pay line.  The man in front of me was wearing a Glock and had a knife in his belt.  He was ready for action.  ONe look at his facial expression and I knew this was not someone I wanted to be anywhere near me.  Luckily he paid and walked out as I noticed his Lone Ranger get up.

    What we must have are the following suggestions: strict checks,  annual checks, medical certification that the person is playing with a full deck, no criminal or psychiatric record, no record of violence domestic or otherwise and restricted reasons for even having the gun.  There must also be  annual or semi annual reviews and practice.  Full instruction as to how the gun is to be kept and maintained.  If sold - a record of when and to whom and the amount received.  There can be no more that two transfers of ownership withing a year.
  • gymrat22
    2012-05-22 03:28:37 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I still maintain that the second Amendment wasn't put in the Constitution to protect against foreign enemies, but domestic ones emanating from Washington.It's the last resort method, the last chance our free nation has to destroy a tyranny that grew out of our democracy,the Founding Fathers...not only were very advanced in their social thinking...they are proving to be fairly good at prophesy also.Let's hope we can stop the Koch agenda with all the other Amendments that we have at our disposal.The 2nd...if it comes to that, we have lost anyway.But it's there.And I believe in my heart,it's there for national freedom, not from abroad,but from the penthouse.
      But also...keep in mind, this is just my opinion,and since I don't make my living as a Constitutional attorney,a lot of times,my opinion should be taken with the requisite amount of salt.
  • fenway
    2012-05-22 09:04:54 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Good discussion.

    Generally speaking, no one will be "taking away" anyones guns. 

    Aren't there are already as many guns as people in America?  Or more?  Too late to put THAT toothpaste back into the tube.

    Having said that, no citizen needs machine guns or assault guns of ANY kind.  Maybe those SHOULD be "taken away". 

    But, long guns are for hunting and handguns for protection.  Whether you agree with that justification or not, that's just reality.  And sometimes reality sucks.

    Hunting has existed in this country as long as this has been a country.  It was mostly for food in the days of yonder, now more for sport.  Hunting skills and guns are passed down from generation to generation.

    Several years ago I worked with a man who's whole life revolved around hunting and fishing.  It was his passion.  He ate most of what he killed and gave the rest to friends.  For him, "eat what you kill" made it right. 

    We could tighten up our gun laws, but "take away" our guns???  Not going to happen.
  • that guy in Arizona
    2012-05-22 11:24:52 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Ariegur:


    Since I also live in Arizona also, I've been hammering the legislature as much as possible about the gun laws they've tried to pass this session. Amazingly, I actually received personal responses from several legislators, and all three bills that I was opposed to - SB 1474 (guns on campus), HB 2729 (guns in public places), and HB 2719 (elimination of gun free school zones) were defeated.

    I sent a copy of my original rant about guns on campus directly to Tom Horne, the Attorney General of the State of Arizona:

    http://tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2012/01/guns-on-campus-in-arizona.html

    A good resource in my fight against the gun nuts was an organization called Arizonans for Gun Safety. The link to their Facebook page is posted below:

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Arizonans-for-Gun-Safety/214848648594608

    Your story about the Lone Ranger in the supermarket line is a little scary, especially due to the fact that Representative Gabby Giffords was shot outside a Safeway store in Tucson in January of last year.

    Thanks to Russell Pearce, it's now easier to get permission to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona that it is to get permission to drive a car:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/17/arizona-gun-law-concealed_n_541445.html

    Since Arizona's 2010 law no longer required background checks to buy a weapon, Jared Lougner's name became nationally known, and 13 people in your city became victims of a mentally deranged man who has no business owning a gun.

    If you'd like to write directly to our legislators in Arizona, the lin below provides the email addresses for everyone in the House and the Senate:

    http://www.azleg.gov/
  • gymrat22
    2012-05-23 04:10:10 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This is only my opinion,so take it with the proper amount of salt.I think that weapon ownership has gone way up,and the teaching of responsibilities of same has gone way down.
      Owning weapons are a serious responsibility.To keep them secure,we all know that.But to keep them in perfect working order,is harder than one might think.And that goes hand in hand with safety.Cleaning,sighting the weapon(so if,God forbid,you are forced to fire it in anger,you will hit what you are aiming at,and not something else)practicing with it,see above reason...there is a lot to gun ownership that gets lost in the (mostly NRA) heated up debates.
      "Machine guns".They are illegal in all 50 states,except for a few law enforcement operations and of course,our military.Fully automatic(pull and hold the trigger and the weapon will continue to fire until you release the trigger,or the magazine empties)are also illegal in all states without a permit,that is almost impossible to get,without showing a real serious reason for having one.And there aren't that many good reasons out there."Assult type weapons" semi-automatics abound,I own two myself.But one has to pull the trigger for each shot.
      And as I have said,and continue to believe,the 2nd is in there as a last ditch resort to keep us from a rising tyranny.It is the ultimiate last resort,but I think that's what the Founding Fathers stuck it in there for.A government that has all the guns,has no reason to pay anything but lip service,if that,to it's population.
      That's one thing the USA will never have to worry about.They can pass stuff like Citizens United,they can declare war on the poor,war on women...and so on.BUT,they cannot take away our freedoms,unless they are willing to fight.And they aren't.They might get dirty or something.As long as we own weapons,we are reasonably safe.Secure...that's a horse of a different color...for that,we have to vote out the Re-Pubs.But that's for another thread,and I'm going to bed.

        Good night america, wherever you are
  • fenway
    2012-05-23 09:43:04 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    gym,

    While I do not claim to be an expert of all things concerning firearms...

    Machine guns have been unlawful since 1934 UNLESS special permission from the US Treasury Department.  Special taxes, registrations, FBI background checks...lots of special requirements but yes, civilians do own machine guns.

    It took about 30 seconds to get this information on a quick search.  As others on this forum have told me "just google it".  "OWN A MACHINE GUN"  will generate lots of results. 

    Apparently as of 1995 there were about 120,000 machine guns registered by civilians.  If true, that would make them much more prevelant than most people would think.  More than your post would make it seem, in my opinion.

    It is not easy nor common, but lots of people DO OWN machine guns.

    Not to mention the number of illegally owned machine guns.  Lots of illegal arms pass across our (mostly southern) borders on a regular basis.  And the legally sold semi automatics which have been illegally modified to full auto.

    There are LOTS of illegal things that are common across this country. 

  • WovenGems
    2012-05-23 11:51:01 AM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The silliness comes into play when someone starts screaming 2nd amendments rights when a city says no AR15 in the city. But only a fool would use a rifle of that power in an apartment building. The round would go through the bad guy, through the wall and neighbors body and come to rest out in the yard.
    No local government has ever said "no shotguns" so the argument is between safe and unsafe practices. Not Democrat or Republican.
  • fenway
    2012-05-23 01:18:58 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Woven,

    "Only a fool".  There's lots and lots of fools in this country and some of them own guns.
  • gymrat22
    2012-05-26 06:01:09 PM
    Not Logged In
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    fenway Wrote: gym,

    While I do not claim to be an expert of all things concerning firearms...

    Machine guns have been unlawful since 1934 UNLESS special permission from the US Treasury Department.  Special taxes, registrations, FBI background checks...lots of special requirements but yes, civilians do own machine guns.

    It took about 30 seconds to get this information on a quick search.  As others on this forum have told me "just google it".  "OWN A MACHINE GUN"  will generate lots of results. 

    Apparently as of 1995 there were about 120,000 machine guns registered by civilians.  If true, that would make them much more prevelant than most people would think.  More than your post would make it seem, in my opinion.

    It is not easy nor common, but lots of people DO OWN machine guns.

    Not to mention the number of illegally owned machine guns.  Lots of illegal arms pass across our (mostly southern) borders on a regular basis.  And the legally sold semi automatics which have been illegally modified to full auto.

    There are LOTS of illegal things that are common across this country. 


    You are,of course,right.And after I Googled it,I found that the "facts' i put forth were a tad bit dated.My apologies.I usually do at least a little research before I put something online...it honestly never occured to me that that there were that many weapons like that out there.I had no idea.  Sorry for the bad info.
Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 34 1 2 3 Next