Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

she portrays a lively and diverse group brought together by common interests in history, mechanics, and liberty.

This describes my owning a 1897 Remington Rolling Block and an 1864 Spencer Carbine quite nicely.

She emphasizes, for example, that guns have been an integral part of American culture at least since the nation’s founding and that no amount of gun control will ever bring about the fundamental change its proponents imagine. On the other side, she argues that gun enthusiasts must give up the belief that gun control has no effect on crime, citing laws that prohibit felons from owning firearms as an example of effective gun control. (She fails to mention that those same felons can still get guns illegally.)

Mr. Dzinski’s note at the end is exactly the rub I have with most attempts at gun control; it’s only the law abiding citizen that is affected. And just like the AWB, most legislation falls into the “feel good” category anyway.

But I am glad to know that I’m no longer a “gun nut†in at least one person’s eye.

My son & I belong to a local gun club. We have several thousand members. Some shoot skeet or trap and many others just use the rifle or pistol ranges. We have shared the range with doctors, lawyers, mechanics, laborors, and just about any other occupation you can imagine. I have never been involved with a better & more curtious group of people. I imagine our political interests may be different, even though most appear to be conservative. I have also found that gun enthusiasts seem to have a better grasp of government & the constitution. I believe it is because of the attack on 2nd ammendment rights over the past 40 years.

I’m glad to see someone from academia making an effort to search out the truth about gun owners. It’s a good start towards rationality towards guns and gun ownership.

Her research is a little thin or slightly flawed, but given the area it was done in (San Francisco) it is not bad.

I wish that more research had gone into her statistics concerning gun control laws though. For instance, Florida has attributed their decline in violent crime to the fact that in that state anyone who can pass a background check and can prove they have had training in gun safety and handling can obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This leaves the criminal not knowing who is armed and who isn’t and thus has lowered the crime rate.

As for diversity of the gun owners, she should look no further than a group of individuals in San Francisco called the “Pink Pistols”. These folks are not the “typical gun nut”, but enjoy the sport of shooting and are politically active in the defense of the Second Admendment.

There was a professor in Chicago a few years ago that did a study on conceal carry vs. the decrease in crime. Perhaps someone would know of these statistics.

I think the Red Column would find it interesting to know that Michael Moore, the standard issue Conservative-Bashed liberal, came down on the side of gun-ownership not being the basis for America’s problem with gun violence.

In his movie Bowling for Columbine, he lays the blame at the feet of those who amplify the violence that does occur out of proportion.

Unfortunately it’s folks like the NRA who convince people that they have to fear for their lives everyday, and that home defense starts with a gun, and not other means first.

I know most Republicans would disagree with the socialist notions that Moore puts forward as a solution (It’s not my cup of tea, either) but the spirit of what he suggests is valid: the fear our media and our society builds up between economic classes, and between races is the deadliest part of the equation. Unjustified fear, indeed, does lead one to the dark side, because it justifies cruelties and adversarial, zero-sum thinking that leaves no room for the kind of compassion and communal regard which smothers violent impulses.

I was impressed with the article and wish more gun control nuts would take time to get to know those of us who own guns and oppose gun control. I think that they might (if they are opened minded to the idea) change thier minds and additudes towards us.
About 15 years ago the neighborhood I lived in was having a rash of nighttime burgalries. There were only two houses that didn’t get hit in these burglaries. One of these houses belonged to a local police officer. The other one was mine.
It’s obviious why the police officer’s house wasn’t hit. The reason mine wasn’t? Well when they caught the criminals they were asked that.
Their answer? “Because that guy has guns and will shoot us.”
GUN OWNERSHIP DOES HELP KEEP YOU FROM BEING A CRIME VICTIM.

Mr. Daugherty

I know, by reading each of the columns on occasion, that you are the one of the resident experts on all subjects.

I have been an NRA member for many years & I would rather believe the information I get from the NRA than accept the word of Michael Moore. He is nothing to me and a blight on this great country. In my oppinion, he should move to europe with the rest of his spinless ingrates & that includes most europeans. It was the gun collections of private American citizens that armed the civilians of England, against a land assault by Germany, during WWII. What he says or doesn’t say means nothing to me. I am greatful for the men who started the NRA and I am proud to be a member.

By the way, if a drug crazed fool breaks into my house, I won’t be negotiating with him & I am not alone in my beliefs.

I approve of background checks and whatever but the need for mandatory psychological evaluation need to be applied. This is, of course, the unpopular opinion but it is a fact that there are sane and insane people with guns just like anyother faction.
In three weeks in a town of 100k, three people died by “hunting accidents.” One, I know, is a load of crap. A 24 year old with a shotgun was shooting his garbage can and a bullet ricocheted. It bounced back, went through the SUV, hit the kid in the back seat and hit his brother next to him. The second kid died. It is insanity. Sure, guns prevent people from being victims of violent crimes but guns have also killed innocent people in irresponsible manner. If lives can be saved by this proposal, then I am all for it. It would be a two day test and the psychological evaluation must get approval from a trusted therapist.
Gun owners are fine and gun control people need to calm down a bit but this proposal would separate the sane from the insane who get guns. If law enforcement would quit worrying about who is smoking a joint or trying to make ten bucks, a lot of guns on the streets could be pulled from the criminals who use them for dire intentions. It is a fact.

It was the gun collections of private American citizens that armed the civilians of England, against a land assault by Germany, during WWII.

What?

It was the organized Lend-Lease program that helped England stop a land assault from ever happening.

The idea of psychological evaluations for gun ownership is a non-issue. It is now illegal for anyone who is or has been treated for mental illness to purchase or otherwise have a gun. However, let’s take your idea and apply it to automobiles. There are lots of people driving who seem to be in dire need of psychological help. Each year a great many more people are killed or injured by automobiles than by guns. Why don’t we require background checks and psychological evaluations in order to purchase a vehicle or obtain a drivers license?

Mr Daugherty,

If Michael Moore really cared about gun control, maybe he would’nt have let his body gaurd carry an unlicensed firearm through the airport with him about a month back. The man means nothing, is nothing, and never will be. You’re a fool for even mentioning his name.

Gary,
Good counter and I have a feeling that this is not a case of apples and oranges for the most part. My counter argument is that cars are a necessity for living, work, finances, and a wide array of factors that involve standard of living. Perhaps it is my bias that I personally don’t like guns, although I do support gun ownership, is that guns are not needed by the insane. There are laws already out but how enforced and regulated are they. Attention Deficit Disorder or ADHD is not enforced through mental illness. How do I know yet have nothing to back that up? Because so many people in this country have been diagnosed for that so I know that atleast one of them have a gun. Thinking about it, my friend has that and bi-polar yet has a hunting license.
Psychological Evaluations are a necessity because people who have those guns legally get a bad name from those who abuse those priviledges. Think about it, the example which is a real story that I provided must have had something wrong with him. Why the hell was he shooting at a garbage can in broad daylight? Worse than that, why wasn’t he charged in a highly conservative area? We know the answers to it and I guarantee that he had something wrong with him. I talked to a friend who knew him and told me he was a bit loose. Laws, the judicial system, and the people who enforce it have flaws. If we can get a standardized DSM-IV for people who should not have guns, enforce that, along with gun training for shooting and classes; we would not have to worry about “hunting accidents” as much.
My concern are the criminals possessing weapons and the major flaw behind gun control. How do we get these weapons off the streets and (although I don’t know if this happens) not resale them rather destroy the weapons? The less guns on the streets, the harder it is for criminals to obtain them. I have met enough drug users who look for acid but can’t find it due to availability. It would take a long, long, time but each gun off the street is one less chance for a violent crime to occur with guns. That is the solution. Let’s stop worrying about pot smokers and worry more about taking guns away from criminals and the psychologically unhealthy. The rest of the gun owners will not have to worry about the gun control laws that exist because the enforcement has been made.
I know France, atleast where my family lives, has a fairly low murder per capita because people don’t have guns. I am not advocating taking guns away from responsible citizens, but having them off the streets and away from criminals is the solution; strictly for violent misdeamenors/or felons only. I would have to look more into the misdeamenor factor because more regulation means less guns. I am getting the feeling that the only way to regulate this and improve on crime rate is to open up a federal cabinet such as, “Department for Gun Control Regulation.” They can regulate all valid gunowners who is not valid through social security numbers, criminal background checks, and psychological evaluations. It would just enforce the laws so crime rate can drop and gun users don’t get a bad name. Sure, appeals can be made and should be proven that you are fit to possess a gun but other than that, it should be strict in enforcement. I have a lot more to learn about gun control, its effects, how to bring the crime rate down and what not; but so far this is the conclusion that I have come to through common sense and I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me on my potential proposal. This is to protect gun users, criminals from using them, the citizens who need to be protected, and from psychologically unhealthy people whom could potentially hurt others or themselves. What do you think?

“The man means nothing, is nothing, and never will be. You’re a fool for even mentioning his name.”

That is the most laughable comment I have ever read on Watchblog. Moore may not mean anything to you or I but he means something to a lot of his fans. Moore is something because he made a blockbuster hit and a wide array of documentaries. Moore is already something thus it kills the notion that he will never be anything. You obviously listen to Sean Hannity too much and I would like to say that if I had the money that Moore had, I would make a documentary bashing Bush too. I don’t know why the Right Wing is so threatened by this guy because you obviously are threatened if you mention his name. He stated his opinions and a few facts here and there in his documentary and so what? It is not like he converted a bunch of people knowing mostly Bush haters and a few skeptics would see the film. I do admire Moore for asking a few of the Congressmen if there kid served in the military. It was funny because it shows the kind of heartless, bureaucratic leadership that goes on in this country. I applaud Michael Moore for that. I am not a fan of his but I will give credit where credit is due. He is a propagandist just like Sean Hannity so deliver us from evil.
As for you calling Stephen a fool, you obviously don’t have any sense. Stephen, David, and a few other names that deserve attention are the most intelligent people and most knowledgeable people in Watch Blog. I am proud to call those two a bunch of genius’s. You took it the wrong way, big time, because Stephen mentioned Moore on his position with guns that might cause a few fair-minded Conservatives to reexamine their view of Moore. Unfortunately, you are incapable of doing that thus you are making yourself sound like the fool.

Matthew,

By citing this pivotal example of what becomes an effort to challenge certain ingrained, polarizing stereotypes, you falter by attempting to reinforce the opposing stereotype, proving your intentions were far from altruistic.

As a Democrat, I will continue to refrain from judging all gun owners as crazed right wing zealots, using Ted Nugent as a perfect example. As I am currently a very happy Howard Dean supporter, I am tempered by the fact that there must be an understanding on gun control that I can arrive at, seeing that he received an A+ rating from the NRA 8 times while Governor.

Even while offering evidence to the contrary, you’ve already concluded that the expressed bias of the author’s colleagues (that you infer is their only view) is intractable, and the sole impetus to a disingenuous call for ‘rational debate’.

What gave you away, was your use of the Conservative polarizing word of moment: academics.

Leon, the problem is not gun control, but criminal control. While the situation you mentioned with the trash can clearly shows stupidity it doesn’t show mental illness. If “getting guns off the streets” made us safer then Washington DC and NY City should be the safest places in the US. Obviously they are not. Since the banning of most guns in England, they are having an increase of crime not a decrease as should happen according to those who blame guns not criminals for crime. In England the criminal knows his intended victim is unarmed and thus unable to defend himself. This is why Florida has had a decrease in violent crime since allowing any citizen who can pass a background check and show they have had training handeling and shooting a gun to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The criminal no longer knows who is or is not capable of protecting themself. If the current criminal laws were inforced and appropriate jail time served by criminals we would all be a lot safer. We don’t need new laws, just inforce the ones we have. Ted Kenedys car has killed more people than my guns have.

Gary,
Points well taken and proven. Correction, Laura Bush’s car too.

Leon, then we are in agreement on the serious threat caused by automobiles! The National Academy of Sciences published a 328 page report that showed there is no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. They found in a study of 18,000 State and Federal inmates that 80% of them got their guns from friends or family members or from illegal street purchases. Less than 9% got their guns from retail outlets and only 7/10 of 1% got their guns from gun shows. We need criminal control, not gun control.

*sigh*. For those of you who obviously don’t study history, if it weren’t for the French the United States would still be a colony of Great Britain.

For Your Information.

Aldous,
You know I am a Liberal Democrat but I give credit where credit is due. If it weren’t for my favorite stoner, George Washington, beating the crap out of a bunch of English men during Christmas; we would have lost the war. From my observation and studying, the French and US relationship was give and take as they both deserve their credit for making the US an independent country. This is coming from a French, himself, by the way. I love George Washington. He is my favorite Founding Father. This guy had so much guts. He grew marijuana as well, which makes me smile.

Gary,
Yes we are in agreeance. I will say that the politicians who support gun control should reexamine their position and back off. Tougher penalties works. I will also add that a good economy helps too and opportunity for the poor and middle class. Under the Clinton Administration, I believe we had a 30 year low for crime rate. It was somewhere in that vicinity. I don’t know if it was by numbers or per capita though. For Bush, crime rate has gone up. Letting the poor and middle classes fend for themselves is not a way to lower crime rate. Thanks for the statistics man. I appreiciate it.

Leon, although I’m glad we came to agreement on automobiles being much more dangerous than guns, I have to take exception to your information on crime rate statistics under President Clinton. The rates according to published data by the FBI show that during the Clinton years The United States had some of the highest crime rates in the history of this country. Since President Bush took office, the crime rates have been going down. Perhaps just coincidence, but the numbers I viewed show this. As for letting the poor and middle class fend for themselves, it has always been so. That was one of the reasons that the second admendment was written and is so important.

Greg said: “You’re a fool for even mentioning his name.”

Make another name calling comment like that and your posting privileges will be revoked. Critique the Message, Not the Messenger.

Blaine-

I know, by reading each of the columns on occasion, that you are the one of the resident experts on all subjects.

I don’t believe that citizens should be denied guns of reasonable firepower. It would be a tragedy indeed if our government turned against us and we didn’t have the means to fight back. We need that implicit threat there, in case that unthinkable eventuality ever comes to pass.

No, seriously. I believe that.

I’m not going to try and sell you on Michael Moore, as he is an acquired taste. But I think buying and owning a gun is a choice, and I think we should make sure that it is a choice available only to sane, law-abiding citizens who are not in an agitated state at the time of the purchase. The NRA makes the point time and again that they are for responsible gun ownership, and I fail to see how making that responsible purchase a bare minimum legal standard is a problem.

I will not hand the drug-crazed fool a legal weapon he won’t be punished for wielding. The point of some laws is that criminals will break them and get punished for them.

I think most of us would not want to face that guy unarmed. I wouldn’t be negotiating with him. I would be quietly calling the policy and looking for the nearest satisfactory weapon. A gun would be nice. But I won’t build my society around the fear of the rare drug fiend. Life is way to short to be so unhopeful about things.

Greg-
It all depends on whether the Bodyguard and him ever had a little talk about the weapon. Moore cannot be held to account for the unlicensed firearm, if the man never told him

So what’s the story?

Gary Morgan-
Do me a favor and provide me with the statistics on violence with Britain you base your notions on. Provide me with some specifics on how economic conditions were when Florida enacted the law

As for criminal control, that’s a contradiction in terms. Think about it.

What we need to do is crank down the fear. Paranoia and resentment will kill more people than guns. We just need to make it towhere fear and guns are mixed less in our every day picture of our lives.

I am trying to obtain the new .50-Caliber Rifle but your Governor Arnold Sharchwhatever banned it. Where is the outrage of the Right?

Stephen, I honestly do not know the statistics for the economy of Florida when the passed the “SHALL ISSUE” law for concealed weapon permits. I would imagine the economy there was not much different overall from the rest of the country. I am sure there are statistics available though. As for the information on Britan, a good book is “Guns And Violence: The English Experience” by Joyce Lee Malcom. Another couple of books about gun control are “The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong” and “More Guns, Less Crime” by Dr. John R. Lott Jr. Actually, criminal control is not a contradiction in terms. If the criminal is put in jail for say twenty years, then you have controlled his behaviour for those twenty years. If however you sentence him to twenty years but he is out in seven, then you have lost control of him that much sooner.

Gary,

It would be interesting to find a study of comparative international rates of populations withing the correctional system and if there is a correlation between liberal and conservative gun ownership laws. I have searched, but found none.

The NY Times reports for the USA:

Justice Dept reports that number of Americans under control of criminal justice system grew by 130,700 last year to reach new high of nearly 6.9 million; total includes people in jail and prison as well as those on probation and parole; total is about 3.2 percent of adult population in country

3.2 Americans in the correctional system out of every 100 adults seems very high to me. But, without international comparisons, it is difficult to make the argument.

I suspect there is a correlation between higher criminal populations and laws allowing general gun ownership. That would not make the case that guns cause crime, but, there would likely be a psychological factor in which having a gun permits less hesitance regarding committing crime due to the false sense of security a gun provides, especially among the young males. But, it is only a suspicion and even if true, would have to be weighed against the potential need of Americans to revolt against a future government that oppresses far too many of its citizens.

David, If you wish to find information on the failures of gun control try www.handguncontrol.net. This is one of the many places where this information is available. No matter where you get information, just remember the words of a very intelligent President: “Trust but verify”. I firmly believe that if we had set mandatory sentences for criminals that the crime rate would drop. A murder cannot murder another innocent victim if he or she is in jail. A rapist cannot rape another innocent woman if he is in jail. “More Guns, Less Crime” by Dr. John R. Lott Jr. will give you the information about the correlation of crime and allowing general gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Having a concealed weapon and the permit to legally carry that weapon do not give you a false sense of security. It gives you the chance to protect your life or the life of a family member from someone wishing to cause you great harm. Without that chance you are defenseless. Remember, to get a permit in the first place you have to pass a complete background check, in most states be 21 or over and usually show proof of attending a class on gun safety, handeling and marksmanship.

Gary,
I am not trying to be a smart ass but I want to question the cognitive dissonance that I see here. If we set mandatory sentences, more people would be in prison. Fine, but with people in prison comes taxes. Do you honestly think that the Republicans would support this, “it sounds so good deal” if taxes would be increased? I don’t think so. I have met enough Republicans in life who complain that their kid is stupid but when push comes to shove; they would rather buy a boat with Bush’s tax cut than pay higher taxes for a more adequate form of public education.

Gary-

How far are people willing to go to defend an ideal? This is the question the Republican party must decide. Is it more important to convince people, or inform them and take your chances with the point of view.

It’s important to maintain the latter kind of relationship, because it allows the facts to moderate your beliefs. If you feel it necessary to convince people on basis of an ideal, any means will do.

If, however, it’s the truth you seek, and you acknowledge that your understanding of it has its limits, you not only convince people of better things, you convince yourself. One need not be paranoid about listening to other’s points of view.

I am a moderate on gun control. Total disarmament would be a step towards tyranny in my mind. But it is another kind of tyranny to demand that this right be absolute, without conditions or restrictions. We don’t allow absolute free speech- people who defame others with lies, who produce obscenity, falsely cause panics, reveal national security secrets and incite criminal conduct and violence are liable to serious civil penalties if not criminal prosecution. Despite our freedom to travel, we are not given automatic license to get in a half-ton to multiple ton vehicle and drive it.

In the end, to preserve the peace, we must have laws that both preserve our gun rights, and at the same time make sure that law abiding citizens in full possession of their faculties are the ones buying them. Criminals are going to steal and illegally gain their weapons by other means, but really, is it a bad thing if we have guns to defend ourselves with, and a charge to add to the rap sheet of criminals who flout the gun control laws? As Tom Cruise said of another kind of criminal charge in The Firm, “It’s not sexy, but it’s got teeth.”

I think, as far as crime goes, we need to work it from both ends, from enforcement’s side and prevention. What private business can do is absorb some risk in poorer neighborhoods, and thereby provide some job opportunities. We also need to raise minimum wage, allowing people to make a real living. That will not only provide people with legitimate livings, but it will also improve prospects for employment by giving employees more money to spend that they will spend in the community.

Countries that get cheap with employing those of low socioeconomic class get increased crime in response. Increased productivity and greater business opportunities will balance greater worker costs.

Gary Morgan: Thank you for your comments. It appears gun control is another hot button issue with the libs. As is abortion, criminals actually being punished, driving SUV’s, not being able to camp or hunt on public land, & who knows what else. All these things are symptoms of a problem. The problem is “How can we take absolute control of peoples lives�

When a lib thinks or reasons, he is on a higher plane of intelligence. When a conservative dares to think or reason for himself, his political party, or in this case the NRA is manipulating him. Example from this blog, “Unfortunately it’s folks like the NRA who convince people that they have to fear for their lives everyday…â€. If we were to go back & check the blogs, there are many places where this thinking could be proved.

Ceejaoz: Check you history books again, I know for a fact that Americans sent private collections of weapons to England during the war, because even then firearm ownership was limited in England.

In General: The NRA is more involved in training law enforcement & private citizens than any other organization. How many times does it have to be stated “we have enough laws on the books now to handle any situation� Are your ears dull of hearing? Why institute more laws, when the old ones are not enforced?

According to president Clinton, Al Gore lost the state of West Virginia because of the grass root efforts of the NRA. How many other elections were influenced by the NRA? You will never hear the present senators of WV talking about gun control. John Kerry voted at least 16 times in 2 decades in favor of gun control and yet he appeared in field with a shotgun to make us think he was pro-2nd amendment. Duh?

If the gun laws in England are so great and their crime rate is so low, why are the citizens of that country trying to take back their right to own firearms & protect themselves from criminals? “Will Britain Rise Upâ€, by James O.E.Norrell, found on page 38 of America’s First Freedom magazine, published by the NRA.

Stephen, I believe the extra costs of maintaining the needed jail space to house the criminals would be off set to a great extent by the decrease in the costs of crime itself (medical, property loss and loss of life). Also we have lost sight of the fact that prison is not supposed to be a comfortable place (day rooms with color tv and cable or satellite dish, weight rooms, ect.) Prison should be punishment. It should be somewhere no one wants to go. If higher taxes are needed for this I am one Republican that will vote for them. But that is after we stop sending billions to support the worthless UN. The Second Amendment is very clear in its’ wording and intent. Just like the First Admendment, there is no “wiggle room”. I believe that only law abiding citizens not afflicted by severe mental illness should have access to guns, but that is the extent of any conditions that should be placed on this right. Our freedoms are what has made this a great country. Why anyone would want us to emulate any other country is beyond me. We have come to the aid of most of the world at one time or another. It’s a shame they have forgotten this and continually look down their noses at us. As for the minimum wage, this is a non issue. If for instance we passed a minimum wage of $1,000,000.00 a year, prices would be through the roof. Instead of raising minimum wages we need to educate our children so they can get a good paying job, not try to raise their families while flipping hamburgers.

Blaine-
Yeah, I get it. We’re evil, and we just don’t realize it. Or maybe you’ve let your imagination run away with your rhetoric. I think it’s the latter. Generally, we want just enough rules, regulation and enforcement in place so we can actually enjoy our lives and our hard earned money. Yes, and we’re willing pay a little more for what we get. But we’ve also become the only party really taking seriously our government’s obligation to balance its books.

I know I scare people with some of my posts. Well, sometimes fear can be a great motivator to correct mistakes, keep one’s eyes open. In the case of the NRA, though, the fear spread is paranoia about one’s fellow countrymen. I mean, what else motivates the kind of irrational hatred that informs such wild exaggerations as appear in the first paragraph of your post?

Problem is, you guys say things like “The laws on the books are sufficient” yet, you tear into those regulations, too. You give the impression, perhaps untrue, that you care more about your guns than your fellow human beings. Personally, I think that’s one of the big recurrent themes of liberal/progressive/Democrat thought- the swallowing of the average person by the machinery of modern life. Do guns, especially with the advancements of the last century in killing power, represent such an engulfment?

Weapons are a constant of human life. Where people aren’t allowed them, they improvise new ones and even turn themselves into weapons. The media accepts the gun as a weapon, even glorifies it. But the gun must be a representation of individual will, not oppression of the well-armed over those who have little to do with weapons and violence. A balance of law must be struck so that people can be assured that most who use weapons gained those weapons by legitimate means, and will use it for legitimate purposes.

The definitive supreme court decision posits that gun control is consitutional because the purpose of the right to bear arms is laid out before conditionally. Because of the need for well-ordered militias, the right for people to keep arms will not be taken from them.

We need militias to keep the peace, to protect us. We aren’t given this unbreakable right to arms for selfish purposes, but for the greater good. That right, when it contradicts the greater good, should end.

Definitely have been for gun defense, especially for all (non-addicted, basically sane type) women from age of @18. (by the way am more than sick and tired of all those movies made with the crying etc. females about to be hurt badly!And, what a lousy ex. for any thinking female teens too.)
Yeah, sure, rely on the police that’s the answer.
Had big discussions with teacher and college prof types re some years ago and their criticisms and naysaying my views re. Like any pragmatic adult in this society, had to answer the question a long time ago: Would I rather be judged by 12 or carred out by 6 people?

However, for many years now for defense purposes w prefer a new technology for usage!
Am thinking police stun gun needs to be more available for citizen use. But, I want something to get 2-3 thugs down on usage!
Anyone out there with interest in also?

_________________________
Agreed, if the criminals are put away, they won’t be preying on us. To h… with most of the soft so-called sciences anyway. Time to mock all the overpaid overbenefited Pinhead Dopes/ overeducated idiots. Most everyone agrees with me that we need to use separate islands: one for murderers, one for rapists, one for molesters. Let them grow their own food and be together for the rest of their lives.

Stephen, the only real disagreement I have with you is the definition of “militia”. If I understand what you have written, you are referring to a “structured militia” which would be the National Guard. This is not what the framers of the Second Amendment were referring to. They were referring to any citizen or group of citizens who were protecting themselves or the country from harm. Thus the Second Amendment applies to the individual citizen. This is now the view of the government. Obviously the Second Amendment could not possibly refer to the National Guard because that body didn’t come into being until approximately 130 years after the writing of the Second Amendment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that allows it to be set aside for “the greater good”. The problem with using “the greater good” to allow or not allow a right is that if it can be disallowed it is no longer a right, it is a “Privilege”. Secondly there is the problem with deciding who has the authority to decide exactly what is “in the greater good”. I belive that is the begining of tyranny.

Regarding prison and sentencing:

I agree with both Gary and Stephen. Violent criminals should be punished and not “let off the hook” early. At the same time using the words “tough on crime” are what has our jails/prisons full. They are full of “three-strikes” people who occassionally use marijuana, people who made mistakes when they were young (drugs, fighting, shop lifting, etc.). These tend to be the folks who serve their full term/sentence. There’s just not room…so, we let out violent criminals early because there are so many of the three-strikes folks taking up space (and these are generally non-violent criminals).

As far as guns go…enforce the laws we have! But there has to be a limit regarding the types of weapons we, as citizens, should be able to own. Should we be able to own bazookas? Probably not. I tend to agree that guns don’t kill people…the person that used the gun killed. I don’t have a problem with background checks or cracking down on gun manufacturers or distributors that knowing (or purposely, ingorantly) sell to individuals/companies that willfully break the laws by not performing checks on those who buy their products.

Stephen:

Rhetoric: I believe you misunderstand my point. No matter what the ideas of a conservative, we are all lumped together as brainless, non-thinking zombies by the left. Would it not also stand that if 1 liberal were against guns, another against hunting, another against SUV’s, another in favor of abortion, & so on, are they not all liberals with an agenda on governmental control? In order to pass these laws, do they not need the government to take control?

Concerning the NRA, it is not paranoia when we consistently see certain liberal senators or congressmen push their gun control agendas. I do not care more about the guns; I care more about the freedom & those who shed their blood for us to have that freedom.

Stephen said, “The definitive supreme court decision posits that gun control is consitutional because the purpose of the right to bear arms is laid out before conditionally. Because of the need for well-ordered militias, the right for people to keep arms will not be taken from them.â€

“The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a report that concludes the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution “secures an individual right to keep and bear armsâ€â€¦It details the exhaustive research by Assistant Attorneys General Staven G. Bradbury, Howard C.Nielson, Jr. and C. Kevin Marshall who studied the history of legislation and court cases to reach their conclusion. They note that, “our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective right or the quasi-collective right views.†February 2005, Volume XXX No. 2, of Point Blank The writer of this article goes on to say, “This report confirms…the right to keep and bear arms is a right to be enjoyed and exercised by every citizen. Henceforth, all Americans will know that the claim by anti-gunners that the Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to form militias and National Guard units is an outright fraud.â€

Gary is correct in that this is not talking of militias, but individual rights of citizens. It is not privilege. It is a “rightâ€. Bought and paid for!!

Stephen said, “That right, when it contradicts the greater good, should end.†Let me ask you, what other part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are you willing to give up for the greater good? Would you give up the “freedom of speech†as easily as you give up the “right to keep and bear arms�

Lastly, I might say: it is not the duties of the police to protect us as individuals. They normally apprehend the criminal after the crime has been committed. They cannot be with each citizen to protect them. It is our job to protect ourselves and our families.

Gary-
You’ve misunderstood on the count of my definition. I recognize that the founding fathers did not have an institutionalized militia like the National Guard in mind. That said, they did not have criminals, madmen or insurrectionists in mind. The militias were supposed to be composed of average, law abiding citizens supplying their own weapons.

I’m not going to argue the currency of that. But I am going to argue that the Founding fathers wanted the weapons carried to be used defend the public’s safety and uphold the law. So while I would not argue that guns should be taken from people as part of that greater good, I would argue that the manner in which they are bought and sold, as well as the kind that can be sold on the open market should be regulated for that sake.

Unfortunately, the NRA makes this about fear, and what’s more, fear that runs away with itself, to the point that people dealing with it conjure up visions of those who care more about these machines of lethal force (bluntly speaking, that’s what they are) than they do about human life. That’s what you want to get rid of: The image of weaponry loved above humanity.

If the extremists among those in the NRA could dispense with that, the Anti-Gun fanatics would lose support among the average person. To be quite plain, The NRA deserved Bowling For Columbine. I mean, if you hold a gun rally just days after the bloodiest school shooting in history, it’s going to strike some people as an act bad taste. People are going to become legitimately worried that regardless of what blood is shed, this crowd just wants its weapons.

The NRA should be something else than just a denier of gun control. It should be a shaper of gun control instead, with limits to how far things are allowed to go. You shouldn’t let the disgust build to such a point that people feel regret for those rights, and are willing to renounce them. The NRA should be a safety valve on gun interests, not a pipe blockage that backs everything up.

Tom:

It is true that our prisons are full. The question is why? Could it possibly be the secular humanistic theology taught in our schools for the past 30 years? We are shocked when a teenage girl has an unwanted baby & just throws it in a dumpster. What have we taught these girls when we say it is ok to get pregnant, just go to the doctor & he will destroy that unwanted baby? Do young people have the same respect for their elders as they did 40 years ago? These kids go up to adulthood and guess what happens to them? Should we be surprised?

Concerning guns: you cannot legally own certain weapons. For instance, it takes a Class III license to own a fully automatic weapon. When you purchase that license, there is a background check and the weapon is registered with the ATF and you are subject to their rules of ownership. No amount of gun control will stop the criminal from getting a gun. Criminals do not go to the local sporting goods store & buy a gun to commit a crime. They buy it illegally. They don’t care about the price because it is being used to commit a crime. Manufacturers do not sell guns to the public. Federally licensed dealers do, and they are by law held to a strict set of rules. If they break the rules, then they should pay the price.

If we want our children to act better or have certain morals then it’s our job as parents to make sure we instill those morals within our children. It’s not the school’s or government’s job. We cannot shelter our children. We can only teach them the best we can and if we’ve done a good job the chances are good that they will turn out just fine.

Regarding the federally licensed dealers…I’m not sure they are getting the kind of scrutiny you suggest. Yes, there are laws and they SHOULD be held to them. However, as I suggested before we need to enforce those laws.

When they come for your gun, make shure you give em’ the ammo first!!!!

Stephen, the NRA is very involved in gun control. They are not advocates of it. If anyone is spreading fear it is the FBI, not the NRA. For instance the FBI statistics show that a violent crime occurs every 22.1 seconds. A crime against property occurs every 3 seconds.

When the public is shown these facts can it not instill fear in them? Now look at the fact that the 5 states with the lowest crime rates are “right to carry” states. California, a restricted right state has nearly double the murders of the highest right to carry state. In fact California has only 176 fewer murders than the top 3 right to carry states combined!

Gun control is a solution in search of a problem. Fewer than 1% of all guns are involved in a crime. In fact only 12% of all violent crimes involve a gun. Again FBI statistics.

I realize that there are those who have demonized guns perhaps because they are scared of them. The truth though is that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens who are of sound mind are nothing to fear.

If you wish to see these facts and figures for yourself, please log onto www.handguncontrol.net. The NRA is not the demon you believe it to be. In fact they help train the majority of the police officers in the US. They have a gun safety training class for children (I believe it’s called Eddie Eagle)that has helped keep our children safe by teaching gun safety to them.

As for “renouncing ou rights”, I pray to God that never happens. I firmly believe if the public knows the truth about the failure of gun control that the idea of disarming the honest citizens of this country will be seen for the farce it is.

In Hong Kong, for example, there is gun control and therefore less then 0.01% of all violent crimes involve a gun. Compare this with your 12%.

But to the blood-thirsty, warmonger American, that is the human cost they are willing to pay. Afterall, it is always a good sport for a White to gun down a Black.

And when some ‘good citizen’ all of a sudden turns crazy and shoot pupils or students down, you pro-gunners will just say, “Well, he was a law abiding citizen once, ya know.” and that is.

There is diversity in mental illnesses, but there is no diversity in gun-loving American.

CK:

Before these conservatives jump all over you for your comments let a fairly liberal person do the honors; Firstly, we Americans aren’t generally blood-thirsty or warmongering! The right to bear arms is guaranteed in our constitution …. chill out! Then there’s your comment about “gunning down a black” …. I won’t even dignify such an outrageous statement with any comment. I suggest everyone from here on do the same to your whole post.

Yeah, I could have got the fact wrong. The favorite sport of a White in USA (“to kill a Black”) does not involve use of gun at all. Here is how:

“They beat James unconscious, and sprayed him with black paint. They tied up his ankles in chains and attached the chains to the back of their pickup truck. They dragged James for three miles, leaving his head, neck and right arm scattered along the way. They cut his torso loose in front of a Black cemetery. And they left behind beer cans and a Klan cigarette lighter. His body was so mutilated that he could only be identified by his fingerprints.”

I apologise for not knowing the method so well for I am not a White.

CK:

Such generalized statements are misleading. Yes, there are some bad “white” people out there and there are just as many bad “black”, or “red”, or “yellow” people out there. This discussion is not about race…at least it wasn’t until now; it’s about guns. I happen to be white and I’ve never done anything like what you have described and I dare so most of us haven’t.

Actually, the favorite sport of most folks involves guns and hunting but not hunting people. Most use their guns for hunting deer, bear, fowl, etc. Although many simply shoot for sport and compete against one another against targets. Let’s get back on topic.

I believe there is a connection between this gun and race thing. You need gun because you argue that you need to defend yourself against the bad guys. Who are the bad guys? It is well known that there is a bias in USA that a Black is a bad guy.

Inside each gun owners’ gut they wish to kill off all these “American African” like their fathers did to native indian or like their friends did in Iraq. That is the whole story.

CK, You seem to have a real bias against the whites, so no use in going there. I would like to point out that all gun owners are not white. I do not know anyone of the mindset that you speak of, nor would I care to know such a deranged person.

This is about the Second Amendment and each citizens right to own and use a gun. Blacks are citizens and as such have the same right to own and use a gun as whites, browns, purples or whatever the color of your skin is.

Had James been armed at the time the outcome could have been entirely different. This is why we gun owners encourage everyone to learn how to safely handel a gun through an NRA safety course. This is why we fight for everyones right to protect themself. The gun is simply the tool that should be available to all of the James of this country.

Instead of fighting us because we are white, why not join us by supporting the Second Amendment, purchasing a gun, learning to safely use it, and not allowing yourself to be a victim.

CK-
As a liberal, I am sometimes apt to criticize my country and advise it to accept criticism from abroad. But that does mean all criticism is just and appropriate? No.

Racial violence is not pervasive in my country. There maybe something to the idea that ethnic tensions and anxieties helped to create the gun culture, but the reality is there’s likely more violence within ethnic groups than between them.

Because of the guaranteed rights of this country, there is little in the way of lethal interaction between government and citizen, race and race, religion (or lack of the same) and religion. It is only in such conditions of peace that we can so focus on our anxieties about violence.

That said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The constant nitpicking over these issues is a sign of our committment to their daily resolution. It’s not a sign of the quality of our committment. Yes, we can have religious, political, even linguistic controversies, and we widely air them out. But we address them where other countries refuse to, or do so dysfunctionally. We are not an altogether tempestuous society. It’s just that we’re open about the chaotic, emergent workings of our society, workings other societies deny or fight within their own borders.

Gary-
Read this report.

According to this, of the nearly thirteen thousand murders in 2000, 65 percent were committed with firearms- a clear majority. The next most deadly kind of weapon, knives and cutting instruments, comes in a distant second, an order of magnitude lower in its toll.

The notions that gun don’t kill people is true, but they are a more than substantial factor in the the deaths of most murder victims. This is a source of anxiety on all sides. Just for reference, the table is 2.10.

Do guns help homeowners to defend their property? If we base our opinion on justifiable homicide rates, then it is a rare occasion. In the year 2000, there were only 137 justifiable homicides by private citizen using firearms, this in comparison to the 12,943 homicides in total that occured that year.

How often in a year are these weapons used for defense? Dr. Kleck poses the number at 2.1 million. The NCVS puts it at 108,000. Kleck’s methodology is in question(use of weapons during gang violence is included), the NCVS is regarded as an underestimate, but more accurate. Regardless, this is among approximately 30,000,000 gun owners, if I have my figures correct.

Regardless, the question is whether the presence of gun supresses or increases violence. My answer is that it can do both, but as the weapon is inherently a thing of violence, it is important how calm and collected the atmosphere is. The NRA, unfortunately, is taking a stance that is more friendly to the impulsive purchasing and use of firearms than their reasonable use.

On your statistics:
Measure rates on California, not number of murders. California is the most populous state in the Union by far, and that population alone would guarantee California’s supremacy in the number of murders, all else being equal. It’s also an argument of correlation, which ignores issues of population density, socioeconomics, and other factors other than people’s ability to defend themselves.

On the subject of fear of guns:
I would venture that that to fear a gun is to respect its power. Guns are dangerous in anybody’s hands. Responsible gun owners keep that healthy fear. The weapon’s very purpose is to injure, especially injure with lethal consequences. Bullets tear apart the human body with appalling force.

The fact that the NRA has a plush mascot called Eddie the Eagle- man, if that doesn’t win the Joe Camel award for lethal PR directed at children, I don’t know what does. A child should not grow up deluded about the lethal power of handguns and rifles. Such education should be thing that appeals to the maturity in children, not the immaturity. A gun is a deadly serious thing, and making games and fun time out of such education is asking for trouble.

I think few people want a pervasive disarming. They just want there to be rules regarding how you get a firearm, what kind you can get, and who can own one. Everything else is mostly the paranoid culture war mentality about Democrats and Liberals, and really doesn’t reflect the reality of our side of the argument.

Stephen, The FBI statistics show guns are used in only 12% of all VIOLENT CRIME. This includes murder, rape, assault and various other serious crimes. The per capita rate for violent crime is higher in California than those right to carry states.

Eddie Eagle may not be the greatest name for the NRA safety program for children, but you are entirely off base as to what the children are taught. The NRA does not teach that a gun is a play thing. On the contrary, children are taught to respect guns as to the danger they can pose.

Like driving an automobile or flying a plane, a person should be taught the proper, safe way to handle guns. Begining when they are children can insure that they don’t find a gun, point it at a friend, and go “bang you’re dead”.

When my children were little there was no Eddie Eagle program around here, so I taught them gun safety. I didn’t know how well they had learned until one day my son came running into the house proclaiming “Dad there is a gun in the boat”.

He took me to see it, as he was taught to never touch a gun but to tell an adult about it. There in the boat (which he was helping to clean) was a small, unloaded plastic flare gun.

Years later I taught my son and daughter how to safely handle guns and how to shoot. They have always understood the devastating power of a gun and have a healthy respect for guns.

You are right, guns are a deadly serious thing which is the reason they are such a good tool for self defense. This is the reason that in the overwhelming number of instances that a gun is used in self defense the mere presence of it is enough to deter the criminal and no shots are fired.

Gary-

Stephen, The FBI statistics show guns are used in only 12% of all VIOLENT CRIME. This includes murder, rape, assault and various other serious crimes. The per capita rate for violent crime is higher in California than those right to carry states.

Violent Crime is defined as Murder (including non-negligent manslaughter), forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. A gun is rarely used in forcible rape, and only sometimes used in robbery and aggravated assault, but it is the weapon of choice in murder by a margin of two to one, and you cannot deny that.

As for the per-capita violent crime rate, has your side eliminated other factors from that increase, or are they simply assuming without scientific back up that only gun control laws are to blame? I know it may seem like I’m just being contrary here, but that is a valid concern on how your claim gets evaluated. Also: how many people own guns in California compared to the general population? Where’s the greates incidence of violent crime, and is it among the best armed or worst armed parts of the population?

Regarding Eddie the Eagle:
It strikes people as somewhat macabre. With guns literally being one of the most deadly serious things in our society, the cute mascot is an absolutely surreal piece of P.R., with a note of pied piper anxiety to boot, leading kids towards dangerous things with a song in its heart. The NRA and the gun industry it respresents should acknowledge that there is something patently adult about a gun and what it can do, and not try to give gun ownership a morally horrifying Saturday Morning Cartoon treatment. All things being equal, I’d rather have your kind mature guidance, than coloring books and cartoon characters.

Regarding defense with firearms:
Guns are a powerful means of defense, but also of offense as well. That is the double edged sword of gun ownership. They can settle a situation, or they can help it careen out of control. My approach is to acknowledge both aspects of things at once and strike a balance between the interests involved. We must recognize that guns can help people defend themselves, but can also allow people to turn what might have been mere aggravated assault and escalate it into murder. The NRA must learn to do on a social, governmental level what it professes to do for its members: work with those in power to encourage responsible gun ownership. Many of the laws the NRA has opposed would have deprived nobody but felons, madmen, and people in the heat of passion their weapons.

The thing is, the NRA is taking an attitude towards a large pat of society (and I’m not speaking of criminals) that treats them as if they don’t deserve their say in the issue of gun control. How that is supposed to encourage these people to trust the NRA’s agenda and buy their message, I don’t know. As powerful as the NRA is, I wouldn’t say its been that successful, because it’s done little to convince people outside the right wing that gun ownership is a benign social phenomena.

Stephen, I wish I could get you to understand the purpose of the “Eddie Eagle” program, but you seem to be fixating on the name and have done nothing to look into the purpose or operation of the program. The NRA is not this evil being that you and other liberals have conjured up. Obviously you have made up your mind in spite of the facts.

The fact is gun control has accomplished nothing other than to deprive law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves. It has not lowered crime rates, it has not saved lifes, it has only served to make a few think they have done something wonderful because they have passed another law that criminals wont obey anyway.

Aldous Huxley said it best: “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”.

At this point I believe I have beat a dead horse enough, so I will bow out. I do hope you make the effort to find out the truth about the NRA and their programs and not just believe the talking points of the anti second amendment left.

Thanks for the spirited debate.

Gary,

Excactly what are you calling gun control? In my mind it includes background checks as well as limiting the assault weapons (that bill recently died). Now, I don’t know how you can say that it has not saved lives. Sure, a criminal dead set on getting a gun is going to be able to get one. I’ll give that one to you. However, how many folks convicted of felonies, in a sudden rage, have went to a “convinient” gun dealer to “settle a score” and been told they can’t buy a gun because the background check has shown they are a convicted felon(at least buy legally)? Don’t know? Neither do I. But it would have to be one hell of a “score to settle” in order for a person to seek a gun illegally (which may take days). By then the “urge” or “rage” may have worn off. Of course, I am assuming the person doesn’t already have a weapon (which would probably be a violation of there parol…in most states).

What? would you rather have “open market” on weapons? There are many folks that should have to go through the illegal channels to purchase a weapon because they are simply dangerous. No, we can’t stop them from purchasing a weapon illegally…I’ll concede that issue. But, if that’s your only argument then why not legalize drugs? Everyone that uses illicit drugs recreationally is buying them illegally. Since they can get them anyway…ah, well, let’s just drop the laws?

Tom, I have no problem with a background check for obtaining a gun. What I am referring to is the laws pertaining to how many rounds a pistol can hold, which caliber weapons can be purchased, making a gun illegal because of the way it looks, making it illegal for a law abiding citizen to even own a hand gun (as they are trying to push through in San Francisco), only allowing one purchase per month, and other worthless restrictions on the honest citizen.

I believe most folks who are mentally unstable to the point of killing someone in a fit of rage will use what ever weapon is handy at the time, be it a knife, baseball bat, 9 iron or whatever.

A survey of inmates in state and federal prison showed that most of them obtained their guns from family members, friends, or through illegal street sales. If you have a criminal record why would you bother trying to buy a gun legally knowing there will be a background check. Yes I’m sure there must be a few stupid criminals but most are smart enough to know they will be caught by the background check.

I believe we are in agreement that only law abiding citizens of sound mind should be able to purchase guns. That should be the only restriction on gun ownership. If a citizen can pass a background check then does it matter if his pistol holds 10 rounds or 13? Does it matter what caliber his gun is, or what it looks like? As with owning a SUV or a KIA that should be his or her choice.

I want my .50 Caliber Rifle!!! I want AK-47s in every street corner!!! I want every House to have its own Abrams Tank!!! I am SICK of watching car chases and “Desperate Housewives”!!! I want better Reality TV!!! Bring on the Guns!!!

Gary-
I single out Eddie the Eagle, because I remember this ad with Charleton Heston, and this mascot in the corner. It was a really “What the Hell?” moment. I mean, Moses I can understand, but introducing an animal mascot for a lobbying organization that supports the wielding of lethal weaponry? Would you

No, I don’t think the NRA is evil. Maybe some of its leaders, but what organization doesn’t have some evil folks at the top? No, I just think, that like many conservative institutions, it feels entitled to a sense of persecution despite the fact that it is part of the establishment and in the majority party’s favor.

Market pressures probably do more to discourage gun ownership among your average citizen than Gun control laws. If a person wants a gun and can afford it, they’ll have it. I know, I’ve walked by the displays in Oshman’s and Walmarts. Maybe its peculiar to Texas, but that’s what I’ve seen with my own two eyes.

You’ve got it good- the culture is saturated with guns as heroic weapons, cool weapons, iconic weapons. Some characters are identified with their weapons. Other weapons are identifiable themselves. Take the Desert Eagle pistol, for example.

Fact is, folks are not being deprived. Fact is, you haven’t proved once that it is the guns themselves that lower the crime rate. Hell, what guarantees that they would? Burglars rob when people are out. Muggers get the jump on people. Those who commit crimes with guns try and get the big guns for themselves. Chris Rock even makes a joke about not going into party’s with metal detectors, because the criminals outside will know you don’t have them. You can make guns more universally available, but how does that mean more armed civilians, and less armed crooks? It doesn’t.

Truth is, the right to bear arms is not a panacea for crime, violent or otherwise. it is merely a factor, though one that makes violent crime more deadly.

It unfortunately seem that a great number of Conservatives have bought into panaceas these days. Be it war in the Middle East, Tax cuts, absolute gun rights, faith based favoritism in federal funding of projects, they are chasing after one permanent solution to permanent problems after another. Unfortunately, they’ve completely ignored the fact that the Democrats tried the same approach and failed. They’ve judged the panaceas of the Democratic party in deficit spending, federal programs, diplomacy, hardline gun control and the like, and merely replaced them with their guaranteed solutions.

Me? I’ve had my fill of it from both sides. Utopia dies on all sides. All ways the good place, always no place at all, as the word’s greek translation would have it.

We need to let go of utopia, and start dealing with this world, this place, and its possibiities. The dead horse that is being beaten is the promise of supremacy in either party’s platform.

I find it hard to believe that the Democrat party is still pushing this issue so hard.

Most of the party leadership will admit(off the record) that it costs them more and more votes every year.

Are the outspoken ones within the party, that just plain hate guns (for no provable reason), taking control without reguard for what it costs in votes?

Libertarians and independants seldom run on more gun-control, most think there is enough now.
Just enforce the laws in place.

There are single issue voters, but there can never be a single issue party, at least not one with a chance of winning on a national scale.

The Democrat party isn’t a single issue party, not even close, they have just promoted to many issues that alienate too many single issue voters!

If its working ?…fine, stick with that, If its not?, better stop and think about why?

Just my opinion.

Beagle-
The world does not work by single issues. Those are just more convenient as wedges. While politically effective, they’ve been disastrous policy-wise. Bumper sticker politics deserves to stay on bumper stickers.

What’s important is not the duality of our policy positions, but the reality of our situation. In picking our master, we must pick the truth ahead of political power, even if it costs us. A political career must come second to the welfare of our nation.

Stephen,

From your post I would take it that you feel that pushing the gun-control issue is good for the nation?

Or do you think its good for the Dem party?

“In picking our master, we must pick the truth ahead of political power”

If its the truth, is there even a thread of evidence to back up that more gun-control will help anything?