Average "liberal" not really anti-gun?

[Playboypenguin]

In reality, the United States is varying shades of purple all over

Both sides love the media to portait the country divided into two sections.

That way the "elightened" (the more liberal states such as California, Oregon, New York) can look down upon the inbred yokles in the midwestern states and the "pure" (the square states and their ilk) can look down upon the elitist heathens in the coastal states.

If everyone is busy hating what the other stands for they will not bother to listen to one another. Because if they did this, reasonable compromise might take shape and that is bad for both politics and big business.

 

[Diesel1]

We'll start with this stanger04

The problem is most people say gun control is evil. I see gun control no different than getting a driver's license. Both need to be there for a reason. Not everyone choses to own or carry firearms and not every one has the sense to own a full auto.

Yes, it is different than getting a driver's license. A driver's license isn't covered as an Amendment to the Constitutution among other reasons, and tell us who is it that gets to decide who has the sense to own a full auto? And don't forget, criminals or felons who own guns don't obey laws, and certainly not gun laws. Obviously gun laws effect only those willing to obey them. Criminals don't fall into this category.

Most people want to label a pro gun people as nuts and for some reasons I can agree, anyone that thinks a gang banger with no felonies has the right to go by a full auto is nuts.

Exactly what are you saying, you agree sometimes for some reasons that most pro gun people are nuts?
Since gang bangers don't carry full auto's, this comment is baseless. And exactly what is a gang banger with no felonies to you, is that just not another American citizen who dresses or looks different from you?

The less control on certain guns means the more there are in homes that can be robbed. In turn that puts an even more dangerous firearm at undeserving peoples finger tips.

So law abiding citizens shouldn't have a guns in their homes because they will be taken by criminals ??

 

[Pointer]

Average "liberal" not really anti-gun?

I think, they only think they are Liberals...

They have been duped into thinking they are liberals by the propaganda surrounding liberals and by the liberal media...

It's like, a devil will tell you a number of small truths to get you to believe the big lie... But, he will only tell you the truth when it serves his purposes...

 

[Silver Bullet]

Two years ago the Senate voted on the Gun Industry Shield . I counted Rs and Ds as follows:

Voting Republicans in favor of the Shield:
50 to 2, or 96.15%.

Voting Democrats in favor of the Shield:
14 to 29, or 32.56%.

Does that seem like gun-friendly Democrats to you ? Does that not make it clear who the enemy is in 2008 ?


And even more recently, the following 16 senators voted against H.R. 5013, which prohibits the confiscation of firearms during an emergency or major disaster:

D. Akaka (D-HI), B. Boxer (D-CA), H. Clinton (D-NY), C. Dodd (D-CT), D. Durbin, (D-IL), D. Feinstein (D-CA), T. Harkin (D-IA), D. Inouye (D-HI), E. Kennedy (D-MA), F. Lautenberg (D-NJ), C. Levin (D-MI), R. Menendez (D-NJ), B. Mikulski (D-MD), J. Reed (D-RI), P. Sarbanes (D-MD), C. Schumer (D-NY).

Do you Detect any pattern ?

 

[Playboypenguin]

Two years ago the Senate voted on the Gun Industry Shield . I counted Rs and Ds as follows:

The main reason so many repubs voted for and so many dems voted against this bill was because it was intentionally written in such a vague manner that it would set a precedent and alow protection for polluters, violaters of disposal laws, and general enviromental violations.

The real motives for this bill had almost nothing to do with guns. There were several attempts to correct the bills wording and make it more gun specific but those efforts were blocked on multiple occasions.

 

[stanger04]

The 2nd says we can have guns, yes but when that was written they only had muskets. There is no law that states what kind of firearms we can own.

Second as far as a gang banger or criminal goes, you have to be caught first.
I look a lot different than most gun owners so don't use that excuse. I have tats everywhere and numerous piercings.

Third there are a lot of gun owners that don't properly secure their firearms. My grandad still has his in a glass guncase, that doesn't mean he's a bad gun owner but if we were in an area that has high rate of crime this wouldn't be enough. Of course it only takes one time no matter where you live.

Every place I've seen that sells guns has enormus safety positions to secure the firearms. Gun owners have the same responsibility to secure there own as well.

People carry guns to protect themselves, as I feel they should do the same with the guns they choose to keep in their home. We protect ourselves because the law isn't there all the time. Why is that wrong to expect someone to do the same at their home.

Protecting guns at home is a very important issuse that some owners fall short on. Stolen guns are one of the top ways BGs get them.

I'm not against people owning guns at all but there are a lot of safety issuse I see that have not be addressed. I think the problem is when people take a stance on this issuse they look at themselves, you have to stop using the way you handle your guns and start thinking about the way some others have.

I bet if the gov. said you can have any kind of gun you want but you have to take a safety class and have a proper place to secure such arms (by letting them inspect) people would still complain. Everyone has to make a compromise at some point.

We have the right to persue happiness, but it's not garanteed.

We have the right to bear arms, no one said what kind. They could makes us all carry cap-n-balls or muzzle loaders before you say anything that's still carring arms.

The military carries a diff. grade of weapons as us but they also train for these. Swat teams carry diff. grades of weapons compared to beat cops, yet again they are trained.

So anti somthing doesn't make you anyone thing you have to take in a person's whole beliefs. There are a hundred dif. religions but one belief doesn't make you solid in that religion.

 

[rem33]

I bet if the gov. said you can have any kind of gun you want but you have to take a safety class and have a proper place to secure such arms (by letting them inspect) people would still complain. Everyone has to make a compromise at some point

Your 100% correct.
Government has no business telling me or any other American citizen what what to do when it comes to firearms. A lot of other issues too but I am not gonna go there.

I like my freedom the way it was and not the way it is going. Attitudes such as this is one reason why too, IMHO. We can't expect to be 100% free there has to be laws to have a decent society but gun laws are not or should not be a part of that society, again IMO. To much has been lost in my life already, and I expect more but that doesn't mean I like it or that it is necessary.

NO, NONE, NADA, Compromise on gun control!

 

[Playboypenguin]

I like my freedom the way it was and not the way it is going.

I am afraid the world is just not hte same today as it was in revolutionary days.

In some ways (actually in most ways) that is very good and in some ways it is very bad.

The world is not very likely to shift back towards the way it was so, just like it has been throughout history, we as gun owners can either adapt to our world and try to make it as hopitable as possible or we can fail to adapt and die out.

 

[Mike40-11]

Yeah, your average liberal is not anti-gun. Sure...

"NRA: 3 Dead NYers Thank You"

"Issue is really about assault-style weapons"
One of the responses in this thread: "The USA has the highest rate of gun crime of all advanced nations and we should copy the very sucessful laws Europe, Austalis, Canad and New Zealand use to have multiple less gun death the USA.

As far military style weapons use in crime, a similar situation was once upon a time there weren't many rollover accidents with SUV's. Now that SUV's are commonplace, rollover accidents are common. Once these high performance weapons are common, their use will be more commonplace and there will be worse consequences than we had with less powerful guns just like in the wars they were designed for."

etc. etc. etc. The only upside I see in those threads is that at least some of the posters are pro-2A. However, this is in the 'gun talk' section of the site and they STILL get beat up by some of their fellows there.

Are ALL liberals anti-gun? Of course not. There are many examples right here on TFL. However, are 'liberals', or 'leftists' or whatever term you want to use, FAR more likely to be supporters of gun restrictions most of 'us' (TFL members) would find unacceptable?

I would LOVE to see more dems get on the right side (no pun intended ) of this issue. But with currently 18 dem co-sponsors (and no repub) on the new AWB HR 1022, I don't see it happening soon.

 

[GoSlash27]

robc,
I wanted to revisit your comment, as it's the exact point I'm driving at.

Yes, many liberals on the street are pro-gun and yes they don't consider it enough of an issue to keep them from voting for gun grabbers anyway.

The question is how do we change that. We can't convince them to vote Republican, but I bet we can convince them to vote for more gun-friendly Democrats if we try.

 

[Silver Bullet]

The main reason so many repubs voted for and so many dems voted against this bill was because it was intentionally written in such a vague manner that it would set a precedent and alow protection for polluters, violaters of disposal laws, and general enviromental violations.

The voting record is the most unassailable indication of where congress critters really stand on RKBA. It’s walking the walk, not talking the talk.

Need a little more convincing ? Here’s a quote from Bartholomew Roberts over at The High Road. In answer to the question, “How many gun rights have you lost under the Democrats?”

Quite a few actually...

1934 National Firearms Act - Passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President

1968 Gun Control Act - Passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act - Signed by a Republican Preisdent. Passed by a Democrat House/Republican Senate. The one anti-gun measure in the whole bill (closing the NFA registry) added in the House by Democrats.

1994 Brady Bill - Democratic Congress and President
1994 Lautenberg Act - Democratic Congress and President
1994 Assault Weapon Ban - Democratic Congress and President

2000 Democratic Presidential candidate runs on increased gun control, including licensing and registration of all handguns

2004 Democratic Presidential candidate voted to ban all centerfire rifle ammo, end CMP, and ban semi-autos (including the Remington 1187 he was later photographed with on the campaign trails)

And progunner1957 has already shared legislation that Ted Kennedy wanted to co-sponsor in 1994 and explained what that legislation does. If we haven't lost more gun rights to Democrats, it sure isn't from lack of them trying...

Here’s the link, post #68:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=230575&page=3

Glad I could help !

 

[robc]

GoSlash27,

If I knew the answer to that I'd be... smart or sumthin'.

Look at it this way. Pick a political issue other than GC. Lets say... Search and Seizure. Republican politician "A" is a pro-2A guy, but he feels that the Homeland Protection stuff is a must. "To Hell with the 4th A., we gotta tap some phone lines and find some bugs!" says he. You, on the other hand, feel that ALL rights are untouchable.

You gonna vote for him? I am. The 4th A. is not too high on my radar. So, a big-time 4th A. supporter wants to know how they can get me more informed and involved. They can't. I don't steal crap, and I don't talk to terrorists on the phone. Worst thing I do on the phone is talk dirty to my wife once in a while (she starts it ).

The 4th A. people might want me to vote for a more pro-4th candidate, but I'm not gonna do the legwork to find one. I got my gun guy. I'll listen politely, but I'm not likely to change. Neither are the Dems. who are pro-2A. (kinda). They think abortion rights, gay rights, welfare, education spending, etc, etc, etc, are far more important than gun rights.

None of this even begins to address the single greatest chasm between the Conservative and Liberal mindsets. Conservatives think... Liberals feel. That's why those who support gun control are willing to fly in the face of reality and research. They FEEL that guns are scary and dangerous. They base their politics on emotions rather than facts.

Now I'm on a rant. Look what you made me do.

 

[BillCA]

Stranger,

Your points about securing firearms in the home is a good point and valid. We should all be securing our weapons when we will be gone for extended periods of time. The problem is the proverbial "camel's nose under the tent" to borrow an old Arab phrase.

The biggest issue is that it will be the anti-gun people who try to specify the approved security devices and what constitutes the timeframe you can leave your house without locking up your guns. California passed a law requiring guns be locked away from children. As a result 3 kids died when a deranged man killed them with a pitchfork because the oldest girl (11) could not get to the shotgun she knew how to use.

I bet if the gov. said you can have any kind of gun you want but you have to take a safety class and have a proper place to secure such arms (by letting them inspect) people would still complain. Everyone has to make a compromise at some point.

You bet we would!

Not so much the safety class, but the inspections.

This is one thing I'm 100% against. Years ago a gun-control "talking points" paper suggested requiring guns be locked up and if you owned more than 5 guns you had to have an arsenal license. Part of that license scheme required an annual inspection that was random and unannounced. In addition, refusal resulted in automatic revokation and seizure of guns.

Worse yet, they wanted a PD officer along "to look for evidence of other crimes or contraband that may be visible in the home". An annotation indicated that inspections could include recording every gun's serial number and checking it against registration records. They also indicated that "people with large collections" should be inspected late at night when they are most likely to refuse.

These were only talking points but illustrate their mindset. They have no problem requiring US to give up our 4th Amendment rights against search & seizure to exercise another right. This is like saying if you invoke your right to remain silent, you give up your right to a lawyer!

No doubt exists in my mind that every person under this kind of scheme would be given a "ticket" to correct something minor which would allow them to return at another inconvenient moment to snoop through your home again.

 

[Playboypenguin]

The voting record is the most unassailable indication of where congress critters really stand on RKBA.

No, reading the entire bill, understanding it, then looking at how people voted is how to understand where people stand.

You did not address my statement at all. The bill had to many other implacations beyond the gun issue.

When I lived in Alabama there was a bill introduced entitled "Save Our Rivers Initiative". Proponents claimed that the bill would relieve state and city parks from certain restriction that made it difficult for them make improvements to riverbanks, creek beds, etc. Sounds good right? What the bill actually did, after reading it, was remove restrictions on manufacturing plants that border stream, rivers, and lakes regarding the amount of pollutants they were allowed to pass and the power of the state to enforce such restrictions.

I can't count the number of bills I have seen and read that state one thing and actually do another or that have completely unrelated conditions tacked on. It ends up that if you vote for a bill that says it is going to help provide medical coverage for the elderly you are also voting for a tacked on provision that makes it legal to steal money from corporate pension plans.

it is a very old trick that the right has mastered using. They make a bill that sounds great (like "The let's give everyone a free haircut Bill" or something) then they tack on an unnamed stipulation saying that everyone is required to kill a puppy with a hammer once a week...knowing that the other side could not possibly approve that. Then they can point to the record and say "see, we tried to give you a free haircut and they said no." They just leave out the part about the mass puppy killings.

 

[SIGSHR]

There is a widespread phenomenon I call "Blue on the Outside but Red on
the Inside." I note how voters in otherwise Blue States-California, Hawaii, Oregon, e.g., have rejected gay marriage,and have either voted for or voted to retain tax and spending limits. Many erstwhile liberals I know are rather
conservative in their personal tastes and social circles, several have admitted to me that they are anti-homosexual, others acknowledge the damage done
by Roe vs Wade and other pillars of liberal dogma. And yes, I have met quite
a few who are gun owners.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Yes, many liberals on the street are pro-gun and yes they don't consider it enough of an issue to keep them from voting for gun grabbers anyway.

The question is how do we change that. We can't convince them to vote Republican, but I bet we can convince them to vote for more gun-friendly Democrats if we try.

I think one of the main problems is that pro-gun rights stances have been so loudly claimed by people that are also anti-choice and too far to the right for most free thinkers.

Unfortunately I see examples on this board every day of people who want to seperate people even farther by labeling dems as commies or ignoring all other issues besides gun control when they vote. Too many people are willing to say "only republicans are pro-gun." So most middle of the road or liberal people say "oh well, I cannot support the republican platform so I guess I will not be able to help he gun people." And since guns do not play a role in their own lives it is a decision with which they can easily live.

I would say that nine out of ten people on here are thoughtful intelligent people hat undertand the true reality of issues but that other one guy is usually pretty loud.

 

[GoSlash27]

robc,
You had me right up until you mentioned the 'thinking' vs. feeling' thing. There are issues that divide left & right because one side is approaching the subject emotionally, but the right is just as guilty of this as the left.

Getting back to the 4th Amdt analogy (excellent one BTW) sure, I can't convince you to vote for a gun-grabber, but suppose I took this approach:
we talked about the necessity for the 4th Amdt in an adult and rational manner. I do not disparage you or insult you, but rather give you food for thought. I am able to convince you to change your thought process on that subject and maybe you start kickin' it around with your friends. Maybe it changes a few of their minds too.
I'm not going to be able to convince you to choose a gun grabber over a phone stalker, but maybe I could convince you to choose a Republican who's pro-4th over one who's anti-4th.

 

[sasquatch]

Playboypenguin

"You did not address my statement at all. The bill had to many other implacations beyond the gun issue."

Look at the list again of those Senators who voted against the bill. This list contains the names most of the rabidly anti-2nd Amendment US Senators in Congress. Where any one of these Senators stands on gun-related issues cannot be questioned......PERIOD! They would have voted against this bill whether "implications" were attached or not.

D. Akaka (D-HI), B. Boxer (D-CA), H. Clinton (D-NY), C. Dodd (D-CT), D. Durbin, (D-IL), D. Feinstein (D-CA), T. Harkin (D-IA), D. Inouye (D-HI), E. Kennedy (D-MA), F. Lautenberg (D-NJ), C. Levin (D-MI), R. Menendez (D-NJ), B. Mikulski (D-MD), J. Reed (D-RI), P. Sarbanes (D-MD), C. Schumer (D-NY).

By the way, have any of the above US Senators ever voted in favor of gun owners to your knowledge?

 

[invention_45]

A driver's license isn't covered as an Amendment to the Constitutution among other reasons, and tell us who is it that gets to decide who has the sense to own a full auto

Maybe it is more of a right than owning a gun is. No amendment was needed; it's part of the general right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and is, since not numerated by the Constitution or any amendments, left to the states and to the people (who, supposedly, control the states). The states chose to regulate operation of automobiles.

So perhaps it is as covered and even more covered than gun ownership.

Now that I'm thinking this over, I am not aware of any law restricting automobile ownership. We have laws restricting the use of automobiles on public roadways, but not on private property. I'm given to understand that it's illegal to possess a non-registered automobile on private property here in Broward County, but I don't know whether that applies everywhere. I'll have to look it up.

It might be possible to use the commerce clause to give states rights not reserved for the people, as relates to automobile ownership. It's not like we've never seen THAT before.

I'll check Florida Statutes and get back to yas.

 

[invention_45]

OK, you do have to title an automobile even if it never leaves private property. The legislative intent is to be able to prove ownership. I consider that analogous to the deed to your house, to keep someone else from claiming it's theirs and ending up having to have the rightful owner clog the courts proving he owns it.

But you don't have to have a license to operate it on private property. The law says you require a license to operate on a public highway.

It is entirely possible that Florida doesn't try to register guns not because the 2nd amendment forbids it, but because they're typically not as valuable as automobiles or homes and proving who owns one is a fairly small claim.

It is also possible that their failure to require gun registration is due to their interpretation of the 2nd. I do not know.

What I'm trying to point out here is that comparing the absence of the "right to bear cars" in the BOR to the "right to bear arms" is questionable at best.

On the one hand, the BOR decrees that, if you read it to apply to individuals, you don't mess with peoples' guns. But that hasn't stopped regulators in the past.

The 2nd's existence could be looked at two ways. Either it could be an emphasis that arms are special enough to warrant a mention in the BOR, or it could mean that the original document preempted the government's ability to restrict your right to own ANY type of property, cars, jets, guns, hula hoops, etc., and that someone might have had some second thoughts and figured the public would think "they couldn't possibly mean we can have guns", and added that to the BOR just to make sure.

The thing is, the constutition and BOR pretty much give us the RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Anything) unless a compelling reason exists to control the Anything.

How do we get compelling reasons for just about anything we want to? By the Commerce Clause, of course.

That is the culprit, or at least it is the abuse of said culprit, that everybody should be focusing on.

If I had the power, I could constitutionally keep you from owning anything I wanted. All I would have to do is either twist the commerce clause till it screams, or write a compelling public interest so long and twisted that it would take years to find any flaws in it.

An political attack should be commenced as soon as possible on those two abuses. Any politician who authors any legislation hinging on the Commerce Clause or on Compelling Public Interest should be ejected at the next opportunity, and any who have already done so should be treated similarly unless some wild scrambling to repeal such laws is done, and visibly.