As I pointed out in your other trip to paranoia land ,the repubs have not only talked about abridging your gun rights ,but have actually passed legislation to do it. That means you can not vote for them.
The dems are being accused of not wanting every child in school to carry guns. That abridgment of your rights can not be tolerated. May be you should try the Greens or Nader.
Where on earth is the proof for that statement?
In the other thread you linked to some anti-gun bill sponsored by three Republicans from extremely liberal states. That doesn’t mean anything. The AWB is sponsored by a giant laundry list of Democrats. And under whose presidency was the first AWB passed and enacted? Uh…not a Republican, I don’t think. And the states that are draconian in their anti-gun laws - NY, CA, etc. - what direction do they tend to lean in, again?
Come on.
http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/giuliani.htm I gave you several examples in your other post. Heres one example. What party is he on.
Get a knurled pistol grip on reality. No one is going after guns. Sometimes pandering to the base requires making overtures to placate the hard line liberals. in the party. But Repubs Guliani and Pataki were the most successful at gun laws. Figure it out. Real gun abridgment is impossible. You are being suckered into a repub vote again.
Nobody is going after guns, huh? Then how in the hell did the first AWB get passed? Why don’t you tell me that?
Is there something innate in you that you can’t resist trying to pick a fight? You’re going to plunge this thread right over the edge into the same abyss the last one fell into.
Is there some reason why you’re trying to undermine me? I asked a question which I would think would be natural for this debate - “what makes you so sure that the Democrats wouldn’t try to pass this second assault weapons ban which they have explicitly stated their desire to do in their 2008 campaign statement?” - and all I want is for someone to weigh in on it.
If that’s plunging the thread into an abyss, then fuck, what are we even doing here? Why don’t we all just go over to THR and talk about whether the 9mm is better than the .45ACP or the AR-15 is better than the AK-47 and swap wacky stories from the shooting range and keep preaching to the choir? What the hell’s the point of having a debate on it if I’m not allowed to ask a debate question?
Surely you already have the tests for voting rights in the form of age and criminal records?
I probably don’t disagree with your overall position on this too much. But purely because someone might be disenfranchised by something doesn’t mean it should be forbidden. People’s voting rights might be disenfranchised by a human or computer counting system. People’s right to religious freedom and free speech appear to be argued in the courts a good many more times than one would expect if there was no means people could be disenfranchised.
Gonzomax is entirely correct that the Republicans have legislated gun control in the past, and have attempted to eliminate guns in the cities in the present.
I am attempting to get a clearer definition of his stance out of Barack Obama.
My point is that the Republican efforts to enact gun “control” laws are nothing compared to the Democrats’ ambitions to do so. Offering up three obscure Republican politicians (from overwhelmingly liberal states) as “proof” that the Republican party is just as anti-gun as the Democratic party is utterly ridiculous.
As for Gun Owners of America, nobody is ever good enough for them. They gave John McCain an ‘F.’ Their…scope…seriously needs to be calibrated.
One of those is covered by the 26th Amendment (voting age), and therefore by definition cannot be unconstitutional. The other varies state by state and can be challenged. Neither of those are a test for voting, those are a matter of basic eligibility. A test for a gun owner would be a 30-question multiple-guess quiz before you can buy a gun. That automatically disenfranchises those that are illiterate.
Why not? I can only think of a few exceptions where disenfranchising an entire group is legitimate, and those are based upon physical characteristics, something like forbidding women to hold certain jobs in the military because they can’t dead-lift a 200-pound man.
There is a balance to be struck, but outright refusal is different from a time/place/manner restriction.
Good luck with that. This is the guy that can’t tell the difference between a 10/22 and a SAW.
Dubya said he’d sign the reauthorization of the AWB if Congress passed it. That’s despicable but not as despicable as introducing or voting for the bill. Lesser of two evils, once again this election. As far as I can tell, the wrinkly white haired guy doesn’t want to ban all semi-auto’s like the change guy. White hair voted against the AWB and the national 5-day waiting period thing. I disagree with the change guy on every firearm issue he’s ever almost defined a stance on.
Minors can’t buy guns; that’s not in the Constitution, though, is it? As for it being challenged, I thought your point was that something should not carry even the possibility of disenfranchisement.
I was about to disagree that a written test would be necessary, but I suspect it would budget-wise. But what about providing an helper upon request? Someone to whom answers can be relayed if someone is illiterate, dyslexic or whathaveyou?
Felons in many places can’t buy arms legitimately; neither can the dishonourably discharged or those with domestic violence convictions. It seems that in some cases there are legitimate bases for disenfranchisement, and that one of those is the degree to which a person is deemed to be a safety risk. I don’t see that a test of gun competence and safe handling would be something radical with that in mind.
I didn’t ask what other purposes it had, because there could be several, I asked what it was designed for.
If you have Assault Rifles that are non-lethal and designed for something other than killing, please let me know.
Why do you believe that registration leads to confiscation. What basis is that founded upon?
As for governments and trust - you are talking to the wrong person. I’ll see your 7 and raise you 10 in GB. But that’s a different thread.
No, I don’t think that.
As has been frequently posted, there is far more gun crime in the US than elsewhere, after allowing for the size of the population.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world’s 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
(If you need a poignant example, take school shootings:
- since 1966 there have been about 47 US school shootings, resulting in about 176 deaths
- the UK has had 1, resulting in 17 deaths.)
How do you account for Switzerland’s extremely low rate of gun crime despite having the highest per capita ownership of guns on the planet?
I just did a google search and this is the first page that came up:
Well, for one thing, you get your guns in Switzerland after having gone through a militia boot camp.
So you have no problem with repubs legislating against guns but maybe the dems might. That is so much worse. You are angry and have been fired up by repub illogic. Don’t buy it. There are believe it or not a couple other reasons to vote. Economy in recession ,foreclosures up the wazoo, national debt skyrocketing, countries in the world that hate Bush are happy to see Obama, . There is hope. But single issue voters can be convinced their pet bitch trumps all else.
The dems go from those who think guns should be greatly cut back to NRA gun nuts. The Repugs go from gun nuts to confiscators. You are killing yourself trying to find traction for an idea you bought lock ,stock and barrel.
I very much agree with you in principle. In practice, I struggle with the implementation and the concerns over the slippery slope. It’s unfortunate that so many on the anti-rights and pro-rights sides are galvanized into a zero-compromise position.
I have a problem with Republicans legislating against guns. But they don’t do it as often as the Democrats do. I feel like I’ve been smashing my head against a brick wall arguing this specific point with you, so I’m going to put it in big gigantic letters so it gets through your head:
IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS WHO CONCEIVED, PROMOTED, AND SIGNED THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN.
Why should I trust them? Why oh why, when they have stated in their own agenda for 2008 that they want to reinstate the assault weapons ban? When their candidate, Obama, has been as viciously opposed to gun rights?
How can you not see what I’m getting at here?
This does not make even a tiny bit of sense.