Gun professionals screw up.

[billvon 3,131]

>But isn't the 2nd group justified in worrying that their guns might
>taken away exactly because the 1st group wants to do exactly that?

No more so than the second group wants to give criminals guns. Are there some right-wingers who think everyone, including criminals, should have guns, and those that don't are worthless sheep? Yes. Are there some left-wingers who think all guns should be banned? Yes. But most people in the country (I believe) lie between those two extremes.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>But isn't the 2nd group justified in worrying that their guns might
>taken away exactly because the 1st group wants to do exactly that?

No more so than the second group wants to give criminals guns. Are there some right-wingers who think everyone, including criminals, should have guns, and those that don't are worthless sheep? Yes. Are there some left-wingers who think all guns should be banned? Yes. But most people in the country (I believe) lie between those two extremes.

You don't see the NRA proposing arming felons...quite the opposite. You do see HCI and company proposing total bans, though lately they've had to be more subtle in their desires due to immense unpopularity.

So it's not really the same. You're equating one side's fringe with the other side's leadership.

[billvon 3,131]

>You don't see the NRA proposing arming felons...

From www.gunowners.org:

----------
"Rehabilitated" felons should get all of their rights back when their debt is paid, including their gun rights and their right to privacy. Debt paid should mean exactly that. Let's give those who are genuinely trying a reasonable chance to go straight.
-----------

>You do see HCI and company proposing total bans

-----------
Mothers Against Guns, Inc. (MAG) is a nonprofit and nonpartisan (501c3) organization committed to ending the epidemic of gun violence in our society. Our mission is not to ban guns, but to do all we can to keep them out of the hands of our youth and criminals. We are mothers and others that believe our youth must be taught at an early age the alternatives to drugs, gangs, and violence.
-------------

>You're equating one side's fringe with the other side's leadership.

Looks like you might be doing the same thing.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Mothers Against Guns, Inc. (MAG) is a nonprofit and nonpartisan (501c3) organization committed to ending the epidemic of gun violence in our society. Our mission is not to ban guns, but to do all we can to keep them out of the hands of our youth and criminals. We are mothers and others that believe our youth must be taught at an early age the alternatives to drugs, gangs, and violence.

Their mission is not to ban guns, they just want to pass enough laws to make it nearly impossible to get one.

I haven't heard of any NRA lobbyists trying to get any laws enacted that would allow felons access to firearms either.

[kelpdiver 2]

gee, Bill, in the April 1st spirit, I see.

You switch NRA to the GOA (and without a specific citation), and HCI to an outfit I've never heard of, appears to be a New York City outfit, where the people have already lost their right to bear arms.

So I'll repeat - the comparison fails, unless you want to lie.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Well, those regulations have been long ignored. Maybe it's time to reintroduce them to satisfy the 2nd amendment and make sure that the militia is "functioning as expected". How would you propose going about that? First find out who has what weapons, maybe? The require some training?

Tell you what...

The day politicians stop trying to ban guns,
The day unconstitutional laws are repealed,
The day the 2nd is incoprporated through the 14th and applied to the states,
The day gun rights are no longer threatened,

...THEN I'll be the first in line to register my gun(s), inquire about basic militia training, and ask if there are any incentives for doing so.


ps - you really need to get past the idea that "well regulated" means lots of regulations. It doesn't. It means in good working order. The first line of your post really needs to be corrected.

Quote

Well, those regulations have been long ignored

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

ah yes, your founding fathers.

So, where is the outrage regarding what your Congress and White House have done in the Shiavo case. Even federal judges are saying that it clearly goes against what the founding fathers intended and clearly goes against your constitution.

I am not hearing much of an outrage against that.

Actually I was thoroughly disgusted and outraged that the government (state or federal) was trying to intervene directly in the Shiavo case.

The court cases were sad, the government intervention was sickening.

You'll notice at least I am consistant about despising such intervention. I guess some socialists only like a government with socialist powers as long as the government agrees with them. Kinda sucks when you're on the losing end, eh?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

You OK with regulating guns like that?

I'm ok with treating guns the way the constitution says they should be treated.

Quote

Are there some right-wingers who think everyone, including criminals, should have guns, and those that don't are worthless sheep? Yes. Are there some left-wingers who think all guns should be banned? Yes. But most people in the country (I believe) lie between those two extremes.

Bill, if that's not comparing the fringe of one side the leadership of the other, I don't know what is.

Do I need to remind you about the "Mr. ands Mrs. America, turn them all in" examples? So tell us, how many senators are advocating firearms for felons?

---

GOA is hardly the leadership of the gun rights movement. Wasn't it you yourself that said the NRA was the only advocacy group that matters? (the "second amendment loud mouths" post)

On the other hand, you list some no-name gun control group. Bill, I know you're smart enough to see through their happy little facade. The Brady Campaign describes itself in almost the exact same fashion. Are you really going to tell me the Brady bunch isn't trying to ban guns?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Well, those regulations have been long ignored. Maybe it's time to reintroduce them to satisfy the 2nd amendment and make sure that the militia is "functioning as expected". How would you propose going about that? First find out who has what weapons, maybe? The require some training?

Tell you what...

The day politicians stop trying to ban guns,
The day unconstitutional laws are repealed,
The day the 2nd is incoprporated through the 14th and applied to the states,
The day gun rights are no longer threatened,

...THEN I'll be the first in line to register my gun(s), inquire about basic militia training, and ask if there are any incentives for doing so.


ps - you really need to get past the idea that "well regulated" means lots of regulations. It doesn't. It means in good working order. The first line of your post really needs to be corrected.

Quote

Well, those regulations have been long ignored

You wrote:

"Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

"The Law Requires" sure seems like a regulation to me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

"Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

"The Law Requires" sure seems like a regulation to me.

That is a law governing conduct, so yes, it is a regulation. Now tell me, professor, does that law infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms? No, and that's why it fits with the second amendment.

These laws that forbid people to own select-fire rifles (like the M-16), that forbid citizens to own handguns (like the M-4), do they match with the second amendment?

If a man must present himself armed with the weapons of war, according to the constitution, can laws banning ownership of those weapons be constitutional?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

"Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

"The Law Requires" sure seems like a regulation to me.

That is a law governing conduct, so yes, it is a regulation. Now tell me, professor, does that law infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms? No, and that's why it fits with the second amendment.

These laws that forbid people to own select-fire rifles (like the M-16), that forbid citizens to own handguns (like the M-4), do they match with the second amendment?

If a man must present himself armed with the weapons of war, according to the constitution, can laws banning ownership of those weapons be constitutional?

Are you deliberately missing the point? I have not suggested banning ownership of any weapons. I have suggested a number of times that those who wish to own weapons should be held to a very high standard of conduct with respect to such things as training, storage, etc. etc. This does not seem to me to be at variance with the 2nd amendment.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Tell you what-

When the government tells me and every other man who wants one that we can own a select-fire rifle, then I'll be more than happy to discuss the best training, storage, etc.

Until the second amendment is taken as law of the land again, I simply don't trust the government with knowing anything about me or my gun(s). As things stand now, I won't consider things that could otherwise be considered a good idea (and neither will the other seventy million or so American gun owners).

ps - just because I love tormenting you with these analogies...

Quote

I have suggested a number of times that those who wish to own weapons should be held to a very high standard of conduct with respect to such things as training, storage, etc. etc.

John, just look at how they run the DMV/MVA in your state. Do you really trust the government to run an agency responsible for safety? They turned it into a way to make money. I really don't see any advantage to keeping the DMV open.

"I have suggested a number of times that those who wish to own automobiles should be held to a very high standard of conduct with respect to such things as training, storage, etc. etc."

You going to pass safe storage laws for automobiles? Require serious training for a driver's license, a la Europe with months of training and expenses? You going to change the DMV from a revenue collection and taxation service to an actual safety inducing service provider?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[DrunkMonkey 0]

http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Tell you what-

When the government tells me and every other man who wants one that we can own a select-fire rifle, then I'll be more than happy to discuss the best training, storage, etc.

Until the second amendment is taken as law of the land again, I simply don't trust the government with knowing anything about me or my gun(s). As things stand now, I won't consider things that could otherwise be considered a good idea (and neither will the other seventy million or so American gun owners).

ps - just because I love tormenting you with these analogies...

Quote

I have suggested a number of times that those who wish to own weapons should be held to a very high standard of conduct with respect to such things as training, storage, etc. etc.

John, just look at how they run the DMV/MVA in your state. Do you really trust the government to run an agency responsible for safety? They turned it into a way to make money. I really don't see any advantage to keeping the DMV open.

"I have suggested a number of times that those who wish to own automobiles should be held to a very high standard of conduct with respect to such things as training, storage, etc. etc."

You going to pass safe storage laws for automobiles? Require serious training for a driver's license, a la Europe with months of training and expenses? You going to change the DMV from a revenue collection and taxation service to an actual safety inducing service provider?

Sure. When I become Emperor of the Universe, it will all be fixed to your liking.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,131]

>Bill, if that's not comparing the fringe of one side the leadership
>of the other, I don't know what is.

Of course. Fringe gun nut groups advocate arming felons; fringe gun control groups want a total ban on gun ownership. Mainstream groups on _both_ sides are not as extreme. Which was my point. It's just as disingenuous for a pro-gun supporter to claim "gun control people want to ban all guns!" as it is for an anti-gun activist to say "pro-gun people want to arm felons!"

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Of course. Fringe gun nut groups advocate arming felons; fringe gun control groups want a total ban on gun ownership. Mainstream groups on _both_ sides are not as extreme. Which was my point. It's just as disingenuous for a pro-gun supporter to claim "gun control people want to ban all guns!" as it is for an anti-gun activist to say "pro-gun people want to arm felons!"

Bill, would you agree with me that VPC, Brady, and AGS are the standard for gun control groups, the way the NRA is the standard for gun rights groups?

If so, would you argue that VPC, Brady, and AGS do not want to ban guns in America?


Let's look at is this way: the NRA sees it as a successful year when no new gun control is passed. VPC, Brady, etc think it's a failed year if all they can say is no new gun rights have been restored.

ps - do you disagree with my assessment of what the second amendment means?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,131]

>Bill, would you agree with me that VPC, Brady, and AGS are the
> standard for gun control groups, the way the NRA is the standard
>for gun rights groups?

No. How can you have three standards which are all 'the standard'? I am talking about mainstream views on gun control, and the organizations which represent those views. I think by far the majority of people in the US favor the right to own weapons with some restrictions. The 'some restrictions' part is the part that gets 99% of the argument. Pro-gun activists claim that 'some restrictions' means a total ban, anti-gun activists claim that only 'some restrictions' means a shotgun for every felon.

>ps - do you disagree with my assessment of what the second amendment means?

I'm not sure, since I haven't seen your assesment in its entirety. I think every sane adult non-criminal in the US has a basic right to own some sorts of weapons. .22 hunting rifles? Definitely. Sarin dispensers? Stinger missiles? Probably not. Handguns? Generally yes. I'm open to laws that help that happen, and opposed to laws that don't help and hurt legal gun owners.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Of course. Fringe gun nut groups advocate arming felons; fringe gun control groups want a total ban on gun ownership.

When did Diane Feinstein become a fringe group?

Laughing myself to bed, Bill.

[billvon 3,131]

>When did Diane Feinstein become a fringe group?

Have you ever listened to her?

Diane Feinstein, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Ted Kennedy - none of those people represent mainstream america. They're extremists, even if they are/were leaders. They make great straw men, though.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Ted Kennedy - none of those people represent mainstream america. They're extremists, even if they are/were leaders. They make great straw men, though.

To a point...there are a lot of alcoholics in America and Ted Kennedy is an alcoholic so it sort of works as a representation.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

>When did Diane Feinstein become a fringe group?

Have you ever listened to her?

Diane Feinstein, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Ted Kennedy - none of those people represent mainstream america. They're extremists, even if they are/were leaders. They make great straw men, though.

Bill, they're Senators. How can you claim that they don't represent mainstream America, that they're 'fringe' groups? Unless of course you're willing to stipulate the residents of California, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Massachusetts aren't mainstream Americans. Are you?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[billvon 3,131]

>Bill, they're Senators. How can you claim that they don't represent mainstream America . . .

Google "Joseph McCarthy" and "Richard Nixon." Electability does not equal shared values. Even if the US elects a criminal to be a leader, it does not mean that most americans are criminals.

[Jimbo 0]

Feinstein, Lott, Thurmond, Kennedy, the whole lot of 'em were elected by the People. Surely they represent a large portion of their respective states. It's not as though they're suddenly proposing new and radical legislation, it's not as though there hasn't been another election since they've been voted into office.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[billvon 3,131]

>Feinstein, Lott, Thurmond, Kennedy, the whole lot of 'em were elected by
>the People. Surely they represent a large portion of their respective states.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean they represent mainstream america. They may only represent 40% of their state, which in turn means they represent only about 2% (on average) of americans. So at best they represent small pockets of americans (which was actually the idea.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>When did Diane Feinstein become a fringe group?

Have you ever listened to her?

Diane Feinstein, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Ted Kennedy - none of those people represent mainstream america. They're extremists, even if they are/were leaders. They make great straw men, though.

She's the senior senator of the largest state in the union. She also narrowly lost the election for governor, and often is mentioned in discussion of VP candidates. Boxer might be classified as fringe, but Difi, not a chance.

HCI/MMM/VPC are not fringe either, they are the gun control movement. Your moms against guns was the strawman.