Gods, Guns, and Guts

[JXJohns]

And the circle jerk continues…

@Diogenes the Cynic

EVERYBODY i is in favor of banning certain weapons. It’s just a question of which ones.

[sic]

You might want to provide a cite for that beauty. I know I didn’t mention my desire to ban. I mentioned limited access and registration for the good stuff (DD’s and Ordinance) but I never mentioned banning anything.

I’m well aware of the differences. They’re all still weapons.

As are sticks, rocks, words, typewriters, etc. The point I was trying to make is that I have no desire to have the same tired ass gun control debate with you or anyone else. I will not change your mind, nor will you change mine. If you want to argue semantics as to what actions make one a gun banner or not, feel free.

So you’re drawing an arbitrary, artificial difference between firearms and ordinance. That’s fine. The 2nd Amendment draws no such distinction but whatever. Would you be ok with any ballistic weapon whatsoever? How about a rapid fire cannon? Why is a ballistic weapon different than ordinance. If the 2nd amendment allows you to bear arms, why should you be limited to small arms only. Why NOT a tank?

Once again, with the proper limits, I see no reason that an individual should not own a tank. I could buy a M-60 tank right now if I could gather the cash required to do so. I could own a cannon, a short barreled rifle, a “machine gun” as well, none of them are banned. Proper steps are spelled out quite clearly as to what needs to be done, and paid to obtain each of the things you mentioned. Didn’t someone auction off a Navy F-18 fighter a while ago on EBAY ? ( I love the source by the way )

Kennedy has professed no desire to ban all guns. “Gun grabber,” as I said before, is nothing but cheap, childish name-calling which is of no utility in a mature discussion.

If one attempts to, or succeeds in banning a gun, it makes them a “gun banner”. (is that a better word?) Because they do not profess their desire to ban all weapons at that moment makes them no less a proponent of banning guns any more than it makes them a lifetime member of the NRA because they only want to ban some guns.

It was an on point rebuttal. And you spelled sequitur wrong.

Well you got me there I guess I forgot to use the spell checker and go back and edit my post. Where is that edit button again?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ExTank

The Orwellian twists of grammar and logic necessary for ITR and DtC to conclude that the Democratic party hasn’t been the impetus behind every major gun control scheme proposed and passed in the last 20 years leads me to conclude that I am not now (nor likely to be anytime soon) ready to vote for a Democrat.

It would be laughable if they weren’t in earnest.

Oceana is at war with Eurasia, and has always been at war with Eurasia! :dubious:

The bugaboo strawman DtC raises with his bazookas, hand grenades, tanks, and nuclear weapons :rolleyes: in relation to anything dealing with the 2nd Amendment further proves that DtC is not mentally or emotionally competent to even discuss the issue on any sort of rational basis.

Maybe you think this is a pit thread. It is not. If you can’t win a debate or respond coherently to points then calling your opponents stupid is not a substitute for substance.

Also, there is a difference between gun control and gun prohibition. There is not - and there never has been - any legislative impetus on the part of Congressional Democrats to prohibit all firearms. As I said before, that notion is purely an invention of conservatives and gun lobbyists and has no foundation in reality.

@JXJohns

You might want to provide a cite for that beauty. I know I didn’t mention my desire to ban. I mentioned limited access and registration for the good stuff (DD’s and Ordinance) but I never mentioned banning anything.

I meant everyone in Congress. You won’t find a single elected Republican in the House, in the Senate or in the White House you would vote to allow individual citzens to own tanks. By your own logic, all Republicans are “gun grabbers” just as surely as those evil Dems. It’s only a question of degree.

And for the record, I am personally neither a Democrat nor an advocate of anti-gun laws. I’m a social libertarian and have no desire to take anyone’s guns away. I’m just calling bullshit on the “Dems are going to take your guns” boogeyman. Hell, even GWB said he would sign Clinton’s assault weapons ban again if it ever got to his desk. So how is Bush any less of a gun grabber than Diane Feinstein. They have expressed support for the exact same ban.

[erislover]

@ITR champion

Excellent points, erislover. When I first saw read your post I wanted to write a firery reply about the undemocratic spirit of the far right, but after thinking it over I’ve changed my mind. Let me put it this way, though. There are some people who believe that religious principles could play a large role in their personal lives, but that all governments should be founded and run on secular principles.

As I recall, Jesus was one of them, wasn’t he? (Well, I think he just said to respect the government, but still…)

Okay, so that’s their opinion. The problems started up when the religious side didn’t know when to quit. One court doesn’t give you what you want? File an appeal on some silly technicality and send it to another court. That court also won’t give? Repeat the process. Exhausted your state court options? Have Congress pass a Constitutionally questionable bill that sends it to federal court.

Right up to the last one, I thought they were exercizing their rights as citizens. From that point on, it was just tragic. For those of us following at home that don’t recognize the distinction between A and B types, I think this case illustrates it quite well. But in the context of my post, “secular principles” are a wishy-washy alternative for B types. Hell, I’m not even sure what that means, politically speaking. People have long suggested that the democratic party needs to stand for something, it needs some ideals… I don’t know if that is true, I am not sure political idealism is the way to approach a pluralistic democratic state, but as crazy as it sounds it might be practical to get a clearer, more idealistic platform. I love guns, but I am still a democrat; I love freedom of religion; I believe we were right to respond in Afghanistan; I think that speaks for plenty of people left of the current republican regime; somehow, I don’t think they realize that at all.

(Sorry for the late reply to this, my internets have been acting up.)

[ITR_champion]

@JXJohns

Do you mean other than the Democrats that supported the extension of the BAN on assault weapons last year? Which is that 1,2, or 3?

1. Within the last year, (8 months or so…)
2. Ted Kennedy, John Kerrry, Edwards all supported it, should I go on?
3. I think their support for the Assault Weapon BAN sums up their political positions accurately.

Is that enough proof?

Last post on the gun control portion of this thread, unless you folks suddenly switch from unreasonable mode to reasonable mode. A ban on assault weapons is not the same this as a ban on guns. I’ve asked this question twice, and none of you have tried to answer it: I support banning some types of cars, such as those that have no anti-lock brakes. Does that mean that I want to ban all cars? Does it make me anti-car? If someone said that I supported a ban on cars, would they be telling the truth or lying?

Until then, folks, ramble away. This isn’t a high school debate club. Use big words like “Orwellian” won’t automatically make you right.

[BF]

I was a governor who balanced eight budgets in a row, which is eight more than the Republicans, and I was a governor who was endorsed every year by the National Rifle Association.

Guns, Dean predicted, would never come up - either pro or con - in his 50-state survey of what the Democratic message should be.

“Guns aren’t an issue,” he said. “If Philadelphia wants gun control, fine. If Alabama doesn’t, also fine.”

Here, ITR, you can use this to bolster your arguement. It’s a quote from the new DNC chair, “yahoo” Dean. (NOTE: FWIW, Dean was the governor in a state with some of the most lax or non-existant gun laws in the country, I give him his props as a Dem)

As for the “assault weapon ban” and banning all guns, the AWB was a first step to de-sensitizing the american public on the impact of a ban on any type firearms. The next step was semi-auto anything, rifle, pistol, or shotgun. Right now Feinstein, Schumer and Boxer are all about banning .50 rifles and the now infamous, FiveSeven, the alleged handgun which fires armor piercing bullets.

[sqweels]

JXJohns:

When it comes to individual owned firearms, semi auto, single shot, pump, 12 guage, .22 cal, 50 cal, they are are all fine with me.

Of these weapons, with the possible exception of .50 cal, do or do not most Democrats favor allowing people to keep them?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Watch out for banana peels on that slippery slope.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Who gives a flying fuck about a slippery slope? Stop worrying about what you believe is ‘the truth’ and start worrying about elections.

The simple fact is that Democrats will be perceives as the ‘gun grabbing’ party until someone is giving speech at the rostrum at the Convention with crossed bandoliers while busting a couple of caps into the ceiling and yelling ‘YEEEHAAA I live my guns!’ and wins nomination. Beyond that it’s a dead issue.

And, as demonstrated here, it’s an emotional issue that lends itself to screaming and not debate. No one WANTS debate. Get over it.

What would I do to bring about democratic victory? A few simple things.

Fact: The country is split fairly closely.
Fact: There are wedge issues available to exploit.
Effect: Exploit them.

Find some democrat willing to stand up and say how proud he is to be a democrat .

Have this man be moderate. Allow him to point out to economic conservatives “There’s only been one recent administration in which the deficit was controlled and not apparently an actual governmental policy…and it was democratic.”

Hammer that point. Big ads in which the candidate shows the downstream costs of deficit spending burdening children, throwing old people out on the street as SS is no longer ‘affordable’ because of the debt service. Then pin it all on GWB and GHWB (avoid criticizing Reagan at all costs).

Thrust at the ‘social’ conservative wedge with personal liberties issues.

Avoid religion. You’re going to get hammered no matter what.

Avoid guns. Ditto.

Avoid Hollywood (except for fundraisers). Point out how Hollywood has produced electable Republicans (Arnold, Clint, Fred Thompson) if you must.

Don’t bite on the ‘Liberal Media’ accusations. Go on Fox News. This leaves me opportunity to say ‘When the Fox gnaws…smile!’.

Heh. Sorry about that.

But overall stop worrying about winning the debate and start worrying about winning the election.

[Unregistered_Bull]

@JXJohns

Do you mean other than the Democrats that supported the extension of the BAN on assault weapons last year? Which is that 1,2, or 3?

1. Within the last year, (8 months or so…)
2. Ted Kennedy, John Kerrry, Edwards all supported it, should I go on?
3. I think their support for the Assault Weapon BAN sums up their political positions accurately.

Is that enough proof?

Is it enough proof? It is for anyone capable of emptying the contents of a liquid filled boot by reading the directions that are imprinted on the boot’s heel. Unfortunately that ability is beyond the skill set posessed by some folks.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Do you mean other than the Democrats that supported the extension of the BAN on assault weapons last year? Which is that 1,2, or 3?

1. Within the last year, (8 months or so…)
2. Ted Kennedy, John Kerrry, Edwards all supported it, should I go on?
3. I think their support for the Assault Weapon BAN sums up their political positions accurately.

Is that enough proof?

Your list should also include George W. Bush. He said he would sign the ban again if it got his desk. Why does he get a pass? Why isn’t he a gun grabber too?

The answer to your question is no. You haven’t proven anything.

[Steve_MB]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The assault weapons ban is not a general gun ban any more than banning hand grenades.

An equivalent restriction against any other Constitutionally protected civil liberty would be (correctly) condemned by practically everyone here. The equivalent argument (e.g. “Censoring comic books is not a general attack on freedom of the press”) would be (correctly) dismissed out of hand.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Steve MB

An equivalent restriction against any other Constitutionally protected civil liberty would be (correctly) condemned by practically everyone here. The equivalent argument (e.g. “Censoring comic books is not a general attack on freedom of the press”) would be (correctly) dismissed out of hand.

Since when has it been determined that gun ownership is a civil right?

[blowero]

@CandidGamera

I’d love to see the Democratic party in the US push slightly more Libertarian, and at the same time, cut the feet out from under the Moral Majority.

I don’t get this. If you’re Libertarian, join the Libertarian party. Why does everyone want the Democratic party to become Libertarian?

So, first - lay off guns. Really. You have no chance in hell of banning guns in this country in the next fifty years, barring a true epidemic of child-on-child gun violence. So don’t worry about it. Cast off that baggage and concentrate on your more important priorities.

The Democratic party doesn’t advocate banning all guns. The gun-nuts can foam at the mouth all they want; it’s not true.

[blowero]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Since when has it been determined that gun ownership is a civil right?

Didn’t you know? Everything on the NRA website is automatically true.

[Shodan]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Since when has it been determined that gun ownership is a civil right?

Since the Second Amendment was ratified, obviously.

Regards,
Shodan

[UncleBeer]

So, with all the caveats and twists which have now been applied to the requirements of a citation showing evidence of a leading Democrat seeking a general ban on guns, does this suffice:

Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.

Joe Biden - November 18, 1993.

Or how 'bout this:

Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.

Janet Reno - December 1993.

How about this:

We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!

Charles Schumer - March 1993.

Or this:

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe.”

Diane Feinstein - November 1993 (and this is a wholly different quote from her previous one mentioned here which addressed only so-called assualt weapons)

There are dozens more about banning handguns only - including actual legislation introduced by John Chaffee and Major Owens.

[Shodan]

Entering into the spirit of certain posters:

That’s not evidence. You haven’t proven anything. Democrats are pro-gun, and nothing you have posted refutes that.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shodan

Since the Second Amendment was ratified, obviously.

Regards,
Shodan

I missed it. When did the Supreme Court rule that the 2nd Amendment refers to individuals rather than militias.

(I am not interested in personal opinions about the Amendment, only in SCOTUS rulings that gun ownership is a civil right)

[JXJohns]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Your list should also include George W. Bush. He said he would sign the ban again if it got his desk. Why does he get a pass? Why isn’t he a gun grabber too?

The answer to your question is no. You haven’t proven anything.

I never gave GW or his dad a pass. The topic is about democrat gun grabbers, not republicans. Start a new thread for that one.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@UncleBeer

So, with all the caveats and twists which have now been applied to the requirements of a citation showing evidence of a leading Democrat seeking a general ban on guns, does this suffice:

Nope.

Cherry picking some quotes from a few individual Dems without bothering to provide any links or context does not prove that there is any sort of legislative charge by Dems to ban all firearms. There is no such intention or movement by the party as a party and that’s all there is to it (and Janet Reno is not a legislator or an elected official so her inclusion on the list is irrelevant).

I’m not even sure I trust you as to the quotes that you did post. I want to see context. How about some links? Or did you pull these things off some gun site as is?