Volunteer to Campaign

I thought it would be nice if we made it easier for Fruheads to volunteer to work on the campaign of there choice. Put a link to the campaign of your choice on this forum. It would be best if people could put in their links without fear of flaming. Lets keep this political forum non-partisan. I think we all agree that democracy works better when more people get involved.

John Kerry for President

Here is a one stop shopping site to register to vote, compliments of the League of Women Voters.

...is your friend. :)

Michael Badnarik for President

NYRA

americans against bush

Though any anti-bush site will do.

John Kerry is a douchebag but I'm voting for him anyway dot com.

http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp

funny parody

omg.

"instances of doucheitude" is the funniest thing i've read this week.

Student Movement Coordination Comittee for Democracy in Iran

There are so many great candidates out there that I support. Among them:
John Cusack
Cthulhu
A Hamster
Nobody
Admiral Ackbar
Gay Penguin
Mark Twain
Kompressor
Louie Anderson
Mike The Headless Chicken
And finally, They Might Be Giants

Myself? I'm leaning toward The Gay Penguin.

If the political center isn't your thing, one of these candidates will certainly appeal:

Charles Jay
Bill Van Auken
Diane Templin
Michael Peroutka
David Cobb
Walt Brown

Petition US Congress to Renew Assault-Weapons Ban

Signed and sent to 20 people. :)

thank you.

Sure try and take away my AK-17. Deer move fast and all those bullets make the venison crunchy.

i like it better with the nice woodsy flavor from a few sturdy arrows.

Well maybe if arrows are flaming.

Now what I really want is a Bradley Fighting Vehical but those woolly headed liberals won't let me own one.

hey!� no flaming on this forum!� you said yourself it's a Bad Thing!�

if you drive a Bradley that's even more evol than a Hummer, which is way more evol than an SUV.� so you should definitely move to the top of the draft list.�

o/~ Safe behind the wheel of her very own tank...o/~

See, libertarians are all for law and order. We insist when you drive your tank, you do it on the right side of the road.

"evol"?

Like, short for "evolved"? or...?

Enormous Vehicle Of Legend

Ahh.
Interesting.

Um, btw, AK-47s are perfectly legal to own. In fact I have one sitting in my gun safe right now.

So what weapons are banned by the ban? I realize the ban is far from comprehensive and that there are loopholes in it but still from my anti-liberty pro-communist way of looking at things, a flawed ban is better than no ban at all.

Well, here's a little bit about the ban. In 1994, it became unlawful to manufacture an assault weapon or normal capacity magazine (over 10 rounds) except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The federal definition of assault weapon includes the following points of physical similarity to military weapons:

• A semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one of the following features: pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, flash suppressor, threaded barrel, grenade launcher, or bayonet lug.
• A semiautomatic shotgun that has more than one of the following features: pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, detachable magazine, fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
• A semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine that has more than one of the following features: magazine attaches to the pistol outside the grip, threaded barrel, weight of 1.42 kg or more unloaded, barrel shroud, or a semiautomatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Note: There is a huge difference between an assault rifle, which is a very specific military term, and an assault weapon, which is a loose definition as above which has to do more with the cosmetic look of the weapon than the destructive power, rate of fire, or mechanical function of the weapon.

Thus, by this ban, it is not illegal to own a fully automatic assault rifle. In fact, I have a fully automatic FN-FAL M249 in my gun safe right now. You have to go through a helluva lot of headache to get the rifle, and be on pretty good terms with your county sherrif (at least in Texas), but it is possible to own one and, in Texas, carry it on your person (not that anyone does).

Just in case someone wants to look it up, the specific term "assault weapon" is defined in 18 USC 921(a)(30). Exemptions to the law are listed in 18 USC 922(v).

Also, just in case anyone was shocked by the fact it is possible to own a pre-ban fully automatic assault rifle, here are the steps which have to be met to qualify to own such a weapon.

This is not the entire requirements, but just the big major ones:

1. FBI background check (not the Instant Background Check; but a full 6-month or longer investigation)
   
2. Registration of weapon
   
3. Transfer tax of $200 per NFA item
   
4. State approval
   
5. Local law enforcement approval (usually the county sherrif)
   
6. Weapon must be produced prior to 1986
   
7. ATF Approval
   

.oO It's a constitutional right, can't be refuted! Oo.

That one I'm really torn on....

well then, heck, don't sign it.� :D

i don't see any plausible�(or Constitutional) reason�that weapons with no other purpose than to kill human beings�in large numbers�should be sold at K-Mart to any eighteen-or-older�who wants one, no questions asked, �but i'm not going to flame you or anyone else for disagreeing.��especially not on this flame-proof forum.� �

mmm... flameproof.

See, the thing is... as someone who owns guns... and has an uncle who is a collector.... there is a whole other side to it that people are missing.

If it wasn't for people documenting and maintaining the weapons used throughout the centuries, you wouldn't have the amazing exhibits that tour the country and the world of abosolutely fascinating and beautiful artifacts.

I think there needs to be a very important distinction drawn for use vs collecting.... if there is to be any law enacting banning use of these weapons. I am totally against outright banning of them, however. If you saw the amazing archival quality collections that people have, you'd probably agree.
:)

interesting point.

Maybe it's because I personally don't see the appeal. And I'm not discounting the academic value of any collection. But I think that just because something CAN be archived doesn't mean it SHOULD be by any private collector who happens to be interested in it and has the means to obtain it.

I mean, if I had a strong interest in bacterial and viral strains I COULD conceivably archive smallpox or polio or Ebola samples. Or I might want to collect the pelts of endangered species, or samples of endangered plants. I don't think I should be allowed to do that, though, despite the scientific/esthetic value such a collection might have -- because I'm not a museum, or a curator, or an accredited academic studying their conservation, and because these things are dangerous as hell and/or prone to economic exploitation even in expert hands, much less in those of anyone with an interest benign or otherwise. My private interest is simply not in the public's interest in these cases, and in my mind the public's interest in safety and environmental preservation overrides mine in collecting. So I don't have any problem with the government making trafficking or unauthorized ownership of these things illegal. And I see weaponry, particularly non-antique non-hunting weaponry, in much the same way.

Ahh... but antiques only exist now because in the past, someone had the foresight to save a current weapon and preserve it in mint condition.

I'm not positive, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that you'd be fascinated by my uncle's collection.... it's toured the world along with smith and wesson's private collection. Some of them owned by famous historical figures.... decorated by Tiffany's.... it's really an amzing thing.

:)

The prettiest thing I can personally associate with guns (I haven't seen antique collections) is the onion dome on top of the Colt building I pass everyday in Hartford. :)

agreed, i probably would be fascinated.

I guess I'd just say that things also wouldn't be antiques if they hadn't been produced in the first place. But in the case of the weapons we're talking about they already have been -- and continue to be -- produced in large quantity for military use. And I may be wrong, but I suspect that in that in this age of archiving everything and anything, you can find a comprehensive, mint set of them in military and manufacturer's collections -- especially any recent examples of limited-edition runs. So I really don't see the necessity of private individuals owning them too. Again, that's not to denigrate you or your uncle or your interest in preservation of rare items. It's just my point of view.

:)

What Lori said, and also as she aluded, what if your uncle collected artilery through the ages, and wanted to update his collection by adding modern anti-tank missles, Surface to air missles, and morters. Of course to maintain the integreity of these things for historical purposes they need to all be in perfect working order. Is that ok too? At some point there has to be a sanity check, and I think that line for that sanity check should be drawn before fully automatic weapons, and possibly before even military-style weapons.

I don't think anyone is objecting to a collection of Colt revolvers, but there is a difference between a collection of Colt revolvers and a collection of automatic weapons.

I think what it comes down to is that line... and where it's drawn.

The fear is that the line will be drawn at an unreasonable and overly restrictive point.

Agreed. The problem is defining unreasonable and overly restrictive. But resonable people should be able to find a solution in there. The problem is the people who are totally anti any restrictions.

Well, I think the restrictions that need to be in place, are. You must complete a safety course, have background checks for more dangerous and/or concealable weapons....

Granted, I think THESE restrictions should be in place.

I'm sorry, but you've got your facts wrong. Even when the assault weapons ban lapses, they will not be "sold at K-Mart to any eighteen-or-older who wants one, no questions asked." You are needlessly injecting a false sense of panic about the issue, as though when this ban expires every 18-year old will be able to get one.

Anyone wanting to purchase a so-called assault weapon will still have to undergo a federal background check pursuant to existing law, and also comply with any and all existing state laws regarding the carrying or purchasing of such weapons.

my bad, then, on the K-Mart line. (I must have meant the cash-and-carry, no-background-check 100-round ammo magazines.)

But ...

In some states, AK-47s will be legally sold to 13-year-olds at shows and through classified ads. What kind of background check can you possibly do on a 13-year-old that qualifies him to own any gun that's not geared to hunting or target shooting? (And even in the case of hunting/target guns, he should never have access to it except under qualified adult supervision -- sorry, no kids' rights to be armed is recognized by this mom.)

In some states, it will be legal to carry concealed, loaded 30-round TEC9 pistols into public venues including bars and churches.

Sure, we can leave it up to the states to set these laws. Doesn't change the fact that when some kid (or adult) buys a gun legally in one state, carries it, and then uses it to kill someone in his state -- or in an adjacent one that may not even allow such weaponry -- someone is still dead who wouldn't be if that gun hadn't been "legally" manufactured and sold.

As for illegal weapons, they come from somewhere, and that usually starts with legal production and sale. Somewhere down the line, they're illegally transferred or appropriated -- and that almost invariably results in carnage. So sure, you can prosecute the culprits -- the supplier, or the thief, or the runner, or the recipient -- for breaking the law, assuming you catch them. But addressing the affront to "the law" that doesn't reverse the death of the victim(s), does it?

And then there are the accidental shootings -- you know, the ones where kids (or adults) get into the unlocked gun cabinet and start playing with legal guns. I just don't buy the argument that those shootings are more about irresponsible gun ownership or parenting than they are about The. Dead. Child. Or the "legal" gun that was the instrument of his tragic death.

Sorry, but I'm with A.J. on being a gun Nazi.

you don't buy that kids getting hurt due to parents negligence is 100% due to poor parenting and/or irresponsible gun ownership?

How much do we have to protect people from themselves?

whose loss are you focussing on here? the adults'? or the dead kid's?

because yes, i think we have to protect children -- and teach them to protect themselves -- from all sorts of societal stupidity, including that of their parents. and we have to recognize that they are not fully mature and may not be able to do that fully, so they shouldn't have unfettered access to lethal machinery. giving them unfettered access -- with or without the teaching -- is poor parenting. but the parents aren't the ones who pay the highest penalty, and they're not the ones i'm concerned about.

See, I agree with you that kids need to be protected, but that's the job of the parents.

If the parents are so irresponsible that they have guns out at hand, there are larger problems going on, and the child should be removed from their custody.
I mean, there are THOUSANDS of ways a kid could kill themself accidentally... and I'm not so sure that a gun is even the easiest method.

while it's tragic that some kids have been hurt due to their parents' inability to correctly handle their weapons.... even MORE kids have been hurt due to their parents' negligence in other ways.
I hardly think that it's the fault of the weapon.

but then what you're arguing is, the irresponsible parents shouldn't be allowed to have the weapon. there should be regulation or licensing in that regard.

i agree.

but you're against outright banning of any weapon, because some people WILL be able to own it responsibly. i think that's also a valid point.

but. i'm still concerned about what happens if it should leave the ownership of the responsible owner. all it takes is a burglary. and semi-automatic or automatic large-capacity weapons are a proportionally larger public safety risk than something that holds just a couple of rounds, hence my opinion that they're really too dangerous to be made readily available. it's how my cost/benefit analysis works out, is all.

i think we just disagree here, nate. and as i told starfox, i think we've really hijacked this forum away from its original intent, so while it's a good discussion, it ought not be continued here.

:)

Nah, hijacking forums is the whole point of FHDC.

I just want to say that this argument seems needlessly complicated to me. Some people could responsibly own any weapon up to an H-bomb. So what? That doesn't mean that they should be allowe to for all the reasons Lori just mentioned. The asinine unlimited interpretation of the second amendment not withstanding, I don't think people have a RIGHT to own guns any more than they have a RIGHT to drive cars. Both are privileges, plain and simple. Why in the name of sanity would you say that you have no right to drive a car, but you have a right to own a gun. That is insane.

Also to anyone who tries to fly the gun bans don't stop illegal guns argument. True, but there are still plenty of gun incidents which are committed with LEGAL guns. THOSE can be prevented. Since it has been shown that legal gun ownership USUALLY doesn't actually prevent illegal gun crime, it is in the best interests of society that there be no legal gun ownership.

"Since it has been shown that legal gun ownership USUALLY doesn't actually prevent illegal gun crime, it is in the best interests of society that there be no legal gun ownership."

Well now, that's just absurd.

:P

Can we at least stay reasonable with this discussion?

Not to mention patently untrue. Every state which has passed "shall-issue" concealed carry has seen their violent crime rate go down. Conversely such countries as England and Australia which have outright bans on gun ownership have seen their violent crime rates go up following implementation of the ban.

But ...

I am trying really hard to keep this argument civil, but, and I don't mean this as an attack, your statements indicate a high degree of ignorance about existing gun laws.

In some states, AK-47s will be legally sold to 13-year-olds at shows and through classified ads.

There is absolutely no state where an AK-47 will be legally sold to a 13-year old at a gun show or anywhere else. And most states (I think it is all of them, but I'm not 100% sure), have juvenile sale or transfer laws making the private sale to a minor or the transfer of a weapon to a minor (i.e. buying it for them) a crime.

In some states, it will be legal to carry concealed, loaded 30-round TEC9 pistols into public venues including bars and churches.

Name *ONE* state that will allow the carrying of concealed weapons into a bar. And in the states I have personally studied, churches are either prohibited outright, or can easily place a sign which would prevent the concealed carrying of weapons.

I have a concealed handgun license, and believe me, I have studied the laws regarding carrying in most of the states I've visited. If you truly want to know what states allow what, I'd be happy to take this offline with you and you can pick states where you think gun-toting kids will walking around bars and I'll tell you the realities of the laws in those states.

Doesn't change the fact that when some kid (or adult) buys a gun legally in one state, carries it, and then uses it to kill someone in his state -- or in an adjacent one that may not even allow such weaponry -- someone is still dead who wouldn't be if that gun hadn't been "legally" manufactured and sold.

Interesting how you keep using a kid as an example when it is illegal, even without the assault weapons ban, for a kid to buy or own firearm.

I am not going to get into statistics, but guns help to prevent crime and save lives far more often than they are used to kill or injure. You cannot rid the world of all guns. And many independent studies of any of the countries that have banned ownership entirely has shown that their violent crime rates increased dramatically after such a ban.

Also, deaths due to accidental shootings are miniscule. More people are killed in car accidents, or by mistakes by doctors than die due to accidental shootings.

I'm sorry, you need to educate yourself on the realities of the issue.

Starfox, we both know this is one of the issues you love to talk about, but this was supposed to be a forum for political campaign info, devoid of partisan argument, and we've both gone way off track there because sometimes I just can't bring myself to shut up. But I'd like to see it get back to just being a neutral place for campaign links.

So I'm going to cut it short and just say yeah, you're absolutely right, I don't know the minutiae of gun laws in every state, just the broad framework, because frankly as an urban resident who sees her community struggle daily with gun-related crime, (and not a few of those "accidents" you dismiss as if they're inevitable) I DO care more about the carnage aspect than anything else. And yes, the rates of firearms crime ARE high -- and they're usually committed with legally-purchased guns that subsequently illegally changed hands. Check urban crime statistics around the country, or check out schools where there have been mass shootings. The murder rate is not primarily fuelled by stabbings or crossbow incidents or even hands-on methods like strangulation, so no I'm not arguing to take away people's knives and arrows and hands. It's guns that do the damage, in Philadelphia and New York and Chicago and LA and Houston and Washington DC and you name it. (That's not ignorance of laws or facts, that IS the reality of the issue.)

Regarding hunting gear, you are completely misrepresenting my arguments. I have not said anything against hunting weapons, or even for a ban on hunting rifles. I simply don't think it's in anyone's interest to allow military weaponry out on the streets where it can easily fall into the wrong hands either intentionally or not. You might think it's your Constitutional right to be a one-man militia, and that's great. But I reserve my own right to neither read the Constitution that way, nor to want arms-bearing liberally exercised as a "right" by either myself or others, considering its hideous social cost. And that difference of views is why this forum is supposed to be an information clearinghouse, not a debate zone. So I'm out. Peace, y0.

Well, this of course begs the theoretical question of "if there were no guns, would there be less violent crime?" and, I don't think there would be.

Psychos are psychos, regardless of what they're armed with.

Yes. It doesn come down to that, and I think the answer is yes because people who commit violent crime with knives or hammers are not going to be able to commit crime on the scale of people with guns. That is my view and I'm sticking to it.

See, I still disagree... so, I guess we'll have to leave it at that.
:)

If you're just talking scale, then poison would be more effective and kill more people at once.... just throw some in the school lunch. And poison is easier to come by/make.

bah. this thread can't be killed with an Uzi, so what the hell, i'll come back in. because somewhere we're talking about venison, and that's good stuff. :)

there's a difference between planned, targeted terroristic actions like poisoning a school's cafeteria lunches, and the crimes of passion or opportunity that constitute most gun violence. you're right that there are easier (and subtler!) ways to carry out a killing spree among a discrete group of people than guns.

but planned terroristic killing sprees are not what fuels the violent-crime rate. that's opportunistic violence, or drug wars, or turf wars, or domestic or neighbor disputes. and all of those are much more likely to involve guns than poison. and when you allow easy access to rapid-fire, quick-reload weaponry, there's going to be that much more injury or death, for participants and "innocent bystanders" alike.

there's a reason most urban police departments want the ban to stay in place, and i honestly don't believe it's because they want to have all the powah.

They say, and I'm fool enough to believe them, that it's because they want to cut down on gang-banging, on the availability trough purchase or burglary of high-"prestige", more-powerful, or cooler-looking, latest-thing weaponry -- and on the frequency of its being shown off, and used in a fit of temper, or misappropriated and used against its owner by a more experienced criminal. Because of the nature of the gun and its capacity, its use in those circumstances will likely be far more damaging than, say, a sawed-off shotgun or revolver.

Nate, you as a responsible gun owner admit to wanting one because it's fun. now imagine how a street thug -- or just your friendly neighborhood punk -- who also thinks it's fun would misuse it?

Sometimes, "i want it" just isn't a good enough reason to be allowed it -- whatever "it" is. At least not without extremely strict regulation that proves an ability to handle responsibly and safeguard the item in question, and subsequent monitoring of the weapon's condition, storage and use. Maybe you're willing to subject yourself to that, in which case i applaud you. But most gun owners i've talked to would reflexively scream to high heaven about their second amendment rights -- which proves to me they don't really want to take responsibility for the danger factor inherent in their guns.

And therefore, gun nazi that i am, I think most of them shouldn't be allowed "cool", semi-automatic, military-style weaponry -- or anything more than a hunting rifle, really. Heaven knows they can do enough damage with that, if -- as i discern from their fixation on their absolute right to bear arms -- they really do have less regard for public safety than they do for their own coveting of the latest cool toy.

Just my point of view.

See, now you are changing the focus of your argument. Originally you claimed that we needed the assault weapons ban to prevent "military weaponry" from being used or owned. I definitively showed that the assault weapons ban that you want renewed does not prevent and does not even address military style weaponry. It simply demonized certain "scary looking" guns. It's all cosmetic.

I also find it interesting that the cities you mentioned, with the exception of Houston, all prohibit the carrying of weapons (concealed or otherwise), or prohibit even the ownership of weapons (i.e. Chicago). As far as Houston, the violent crime rate fell following the passage of the concealed carry law here in Texas. It's still a violent city, sure, but that has to do with alot more than the availability of guns.

School shootings are also in places that are so-called gun-free zones. Israel had a problem in the 80s and early 90s with terrorists blowing themselves up in schools. Israel passed legislation which allowed schools to set up a program where private citizens could carry concealed weapons on school grounds (kind of a gun-toting hall-monitor, PTA, type program) and terrorists went elsewhere to go blow themselves up and harm people.

Simply put, when you restrict someone's right to self-defense, of course violent crime will go up.

so tell me... how often are guns actually used for self-defense?

Well, now we get into statistics, and I hate to argue statistics. However, most surveys and studies I've read (from pro-gun and neutral sources), indicate that, if you take the low end of all surveys, that guns are used on average about 1.5 million times a year to stop the commission of a crime.

In 95% of these cases the simple brandishing of the weapon was enough to deter the crime from occuring. If you want specific sources and studies, I'll have to go dig them out of my email and my bookcase.

but were these guns used by law enforcement officers or other citizens?

The figure I cited consists of private citizens. Some statistics I have seen which cite a higher number also include off-duty police officers which can be argued aren't really normal citizens.

okay, so i'm moving along with the argument and digesting facts as i learn them. that's a bad thing?

i still don't see how Uzis and AK-17s and whatever don't count as military or military-type weaponry. do you mean that they're not *currently* used by *our* military? i don't know about that. i'm looking at what they were developed for.

your argument seems to focus mainly on violence-intensive societies. as far as i can see, the societies where there are the most guns available, both legally and illegally, are the ones where there are the most gun violence. the US. Russia. Pakistan. South Africa.

countries that regulate ownership and type of guns available -- the European countries, Canada -- just don't have the major problems with gun violence. Yeah, of course there are instances. And yeah, there will be a slight upswing in gun crime right after restrictions go into place, because then for a brief while criminals will be the ones carrying guns. but as they're arrested, and their guns are confiscated, and no new ones enter the supply stream, the net effect is far less gun-related crime.

it's certainly not a problem that can be solved overnight. but i just think that the prospect of a fearful, armed-to-the-teeth, self-defense-centered, i'm-entitled-to-shoot-if-i-feel-threatened society is far more explosive and prone to violence -- with legal guns, with illegal guns, with accidental shootings, with mistaken shootings -- than one where guns are genuinely viewed as tools to be owned and used with respect and care -- not as toys, or symbols of prestige or personal "rights". and no matter how you treat or feel about your own guns, there are entirely too many gun owners in America who DO think of their guns as toys and a symbol of their rights, to be acquired whenever they want without recognizing the public responsibility that comes with gun ownership. and that's why i think they should be regulated, and unnecessary ones forbidden. sorry, but no private citizen "needs" an Uzi, for self-defense or hunting or any other reason.

Okay, what about periods of civil unrest? Like looting after a hurricane, or riots like after the Rodney King verdict? If I'm a shop owner and I want to protect my property from vandalism and robbery, a simple deer rifle is not going to work. A semi-automatic carbine or rifle is going to be much more effective in keeping large numbers away.

There is no "public responsibility" when it comes to gun ownership. The only responsiblity there is is to not initiate the use of force against another person. And when force is needed for self-defense, then it can only be used against those who initiated the use of force. Anything else is a crime and should be dealt with as such. You can't make laws based on what someone "might" do.

Let's try and experiment just to see what kind of guns you think should be banned. Here are two guns. Which do you feel is appropriate to have and which should be banned?

Rifle #1

Or

Rifle #2

y'know what, i suspect #1 is the less powerful and therefore the "trick" choice that you expect me to want to ban because it looks "scary" or whatever. i also suspect #1 IS the one that's craved by bad-ass thugs, who will go to great lengths to acquire it by purchase or outright theft because of its high-tech military appearance, and that's why i'm guessing it's the type of weapon subject to the ban. but i'm not gonna go by appearance in terms of judging their actual power, because i'm the first to admit i don't recognize either by sight. (for all i know, they're both really well-engineered air rifles :D ). i do suspect #2 actually does a lot more damage, although i doubt any thug with street cred would choose it over #1 because thugs usually aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree -- they go by appearance and "reputation" too, and they don't want some wood-trimmed hunting rifle when they can have something that looks like #1.

i'd be a bad shop owner i guess, because i could really care less about the stuff in my shop being looted in an extreme and relatively rare situation. i'd have insurance anyway, and if people want my stuff that badly i'm not willing to kill them over it. it's just ... stuff.

if i felt embattled, as if my family's personal safety was at high risk, i might want to have a single gun on the premises as a deterrent. but as things stand, i really do think having the gun around would be riskier than living in my neighborhood, reasonably securing my house, and calling 911 if needed. and yes, i live in a densely populated inner-ring suburb with a moderate incidence of petty crime. not to tempt fate, but we've had incidents just three times in the past 18 years. all of them were petty, all of them involved some loss or damage or nuisance, but certainly none of them were worth shooting someone over.

and if i ever felt like my neighborhood really was that great a risk -- that i needed to be ready to shoot someone -- i'd really rather move than feel like i was living under siege.

You're correct on the test, the first rifle is an AR-15 which fires a .223 caliber bullet. The other is a Browning Automatic Rifle which fires a 30-06 bullet which is far more powerful. Both are semi-automatic and fire at the same rate. Both can accept detachable magazines which can hold multiple rounds. The simple fact is, a thug would be more concerned with what it can do, and not so much with if it looked cool. If #1 were banned, they would just get #2. Besides which, these types of rifles are rarely used in crime.

As for the rest...

if people want my stuff that badly i'm not willing to kill them over it. it's just ... stuff.

But who are you to decide that for the poor immigrant who worked himself up from nothing to own that store? Perhaps in his judgement his store is worth killing over. Other people may have a more protective view towards property rights.

calling 911 if needed.

And with most 911 response times in urban areas being in excess of 10 minutes, and more than 5 minutes in the case of well patroled suburbs, 911 pretty much guanantees you will be a victim.

i'd really rather move than feel like i was living under siege.

Good for you, but what about a poor family living in the inner city that has neither the money or the job opportunities to relocate to a safer area. Why deny them the tools necessary to defend their property and lives?

Also note that the statistics show that the mere brandishing of a weapon is enough to deter crime. It is the exception that someone using a gun to defend themselves actually has to shoot the attacker.

But who are you to decide that for the poor immigrant who worked himself up from nothing to own that store? Perhaps in his judgement his store is worth killing over. Other people may have a more protective view towards property rights.

Then -- if he shot the person(s) -- he would be violating the law as it stands and would likely end up facing a murder conviction, unless he or another person was threatened with violence during the commission of the robbery.

Besides, I'd really like to see evidence that most immigrants come here and open business with a "gotta getta gun and protect my stuff!" mentality. Sorry, that kind of materialism regarding the non-essential is a weirdly American preoccupation.

And with most 911 response times in urban areas being in excess of 10 minutes, and more than 5 minutes in the case of well patroled suburbs, 911 pretty much guanantees you will be a victim.

A "victim" of what? Because it seems you're assuming all burglars are necessarily armed and ready to shoot or otherwise kill, and that alarm systems or guard dogs or whatever other non-lethal crime-prevention methods people can choose from simply don't work.

Good for you, but what about a poor family living in the inner city that has neither the money or the job opportunities to relocate to a safer area. Why deny them the tools necessary to defend their property and lives?

I live one mile from the "inner city", and have done so for forty years. I can't and do not want to speak for every poor family who lives there, because that would be unbelievably patronizing, but I don't think you're qualified to speak for them either in terms of what they might want. But I'll give you a vaguely sociological overview based on just reading the newspaper, watching the news, following current events, and talking to the city residents and former residents I know.

As a group of people -- not every individual -- in Philadelphia at least it seems those "poor families living in the inner city" are the same families who most want guns off the streets and out of the area economy. They're the people holding rallies and marches to enact harsher gun-use laws, and urging the city to hold gun amnesty days where people can turn in their legal or illegal weapons without penalty for a cash reward. Because their small children are the ones who have been killed by stray bullets from drug wars, or by a gun they and their playmates found loaded and not locked up in a careless neighbor's home.

As for their financial inability to move, some want to desperately -- and many go about finding a way. Often that way includes moving one step out, to the neighborhood where I live or to others like it -- that's what an "inner-ring suburb" is. But just as many if not more want to stay in their neighborhood -- which they consider THEIR neighborhood, which their families and friends may have lived in for several generations -- and clean up the community. And in many cases, "cleaning it up" is defined in part as getting rid of the guns. (Guns which, by the way, are pretty darned expensive to own legally, and so are probably not a high priority of ownership for genuinely "poor inner-city families" with little discretionary income, who generally want first to feed their kids and pay their rent and bills and maybe send their kids to non-public school.)

I'm not that attached to my neighborhood -- I'm willing to move. If they're not, that's a valid choice too, maybe a more respectable one than mine because they've made a commitment to stand and fight urban decay with their presence.

So yeah, maybe that aggregate of poor inner-city folks (or former inner-city folks who have moved one tier out) are mistaken in how best to fight urban decline and decay in their own communities. And maybe I'm mistaken too, because I agree that the more guns you have floating around a densely populated area, the more likely they are to be used against people. Innocent people, petty criminal people, children people, people who get them in their hands without knowing how to use them properly, people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, stupid people who never really meant to hurt anyone, who just wanted to have a gun so they could be cool, or scare someone who was bugging them, or "just in case", and even stupider people who -- perhaps under the influence of something or other, perhaps just stressed out by daily life -- take out a gun out and start "playing" with it, or fire it in the heat of an argument or a bad mood, or shoot it up in the air because it's New Year's Day.

And all that death, my friend, is an utterly avoidable, utterly banal American tragedy.

Okay, I'm done. You refuse to accept the fact that there are some people who do not share your views of property rights and the appropriate use of force for self defense. You want to restrict other people's right to self-defense based on a notion of it being for the greater good, and to refute what you are saying I would have to start to go into the studies done regarding the passage of shall-issue concealed carry laws and their effect on crime. That would require discussions of statistics and I refuse to go there.

By the way, guns are not that expensive to own. Unfortunately, affordable guns for lower income earners are already banned by the 1964 Gun Control Act, the so-called "Saturday night specials".

I want one of each.

*innocent look*

-- Pauley

Bah. Define an assault weapon. These weapons which are banned are rarely if ever used in the commission of a crime, and they do not fire bullets any faster or with more velocity than some other models of weapons which are legal right now.

Sorry, but this and the rest of the federal gun laws are an affront to the Constitution.

I am personally waiting for it to expire so I can buy high-capacity magazines for my pistols. That part of the ban is even more ludicrous than the ban itself. Like there's a huge difference in whether or not my pistol carries 10 rounds or 15 rounds.

Right now it costs me $120 for an 18 round mag for my 9mm pistol. It costs $30 for a 10 round mag. Stupid high-cap part of the ban is just one of numerous reasons that asinine law needs to go away.

I'd like to see a 50 dollar per bullet tax. Adding 500 bucks to the cost of that 10 round mag should cut down on shootings quite nicely.

For those of you who like to go shooting your guns at target ranges they could be allowed to sell bullets tax free, but they must be used on site.

I'm a gun Nazi, and proud of it. As Cheryl Wheeler sang: "If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns"

See, that I'd be fine with if it came to it... but hte bottom line is that most crimes aren't committed by people who are paying tax on their bullets. :P

Or buying their guns from licensed dealers and getting background checked.

Prohibition doesn't work. Whether your talking about drugs, alcohol, prostitution, or guns.

Prohibition doesn't work. Whether your talking about drugs, alcohol, prostitution, or guns.

ah, finally something i agree with.

drugs and alcohol being legal is a good concept, in that, if someone wants to destroy themselves, then go for it.

i see�aj and lori's point�with the gun nazi thing. if no one had any guns, then, you know, no one would shoot anyone :D

on the other hand, someone whacked out on drugs or alcohol can get into a car and kill people too.� or beat them to death with a baseball bat. or stab them in the face with a kitchen knife. they can do all that sober too. can't ban all those, you know.

so really i see both sides.� *shrug* guns make me uncomfortable, no matter what you say. my dad has 2, and that scares the crap out of me, what with his awful temper and tendancy to act before he thinks.

Guns scare me and fascinate me, in different ways. I do know if we'd had a gun in our house I wouldn't have lived this long. So...yeah.

on the other hand, someone whacked out on drugs or alcohol can get into a car and kill people too. or beat them to death with a baseball bat. or stab them in the face with a kitchen knife. they can do all that sober too. can't ban all those, you know.

thing is, the primary function of cars is to transport, baseball bats to play a game with a ball, and kitchen knives to use as cooking utensils. (knives are a more difficult case, but heck even their sale is often restricted, at least around here, by stores.) If they are misused, that's criminal but it's NOT tied to their intended function.

The primary function of guns -- the entire point of their existence -- is to kill things. no getting around that.

The primary function of guns -- the entire point of their existence -- is to kill things. no getting around that.

I disagree.
As a gun owner, and someone who has used guns my entire life.... I have never killed (or injured) anyone or anything.

That may have been the reason they were invented, sure... but it's hardly the "point of their existance".

What is their purpose then? A piece of sporting equipment for knocking cans off a wall? Ok, I think allowance can be made for that, but why do you need an AK47 for that when there are far more accurate target guns you could use?

MOST guns exist to kill, whether anyone uses them for that or not. Target shooting, and hunting aside (and I think we can make exceptions for those) guns serve no purpose but to kill people. NONE. Just because some people like to collect them doesn't change their purpose.

I have several swords myself. I collect them because I have always liked swords and I used to be a fencer. HOWEVER I am the first to admit that swords have no other function than to kill people. Nobody really commits crimes with swords now, because they are impossible to hide and we have guns. However if swords were a problem in our society I would be the first in line willing to surrender mine. I prefer live people to wall decor.

"why do you need an AK47 for that when there are far more accurate target guns you could use? "

For fun, plain and simple. :)
Just as an enthusiast of any hobby likes to own the "latest", "coolest" or "most fun" item invovled in that hobby.

Why do people need a Hummer if a Jeep would do just as well offroad? (Actually, considering the purposes most people use the hummer for... a family sedan would do just as well. :P)
The answer? Because they think it's fun, and it appeals to them.

*shrugs*
I think it's as simple as that.

And when you say "target shooting and hunting aside", you're just dismissing the ENTIRE realm of how I (and everyone I know) use guns... so that's not productive.

Why do people need a Hummer

who doesn't need a hummer?

Uh...I....don't. :)

Hahahah

Depends on your definition of "hummer." I don't really need an SUV right now... :-P

-- Pauley

so, uh . . . what kind of "hummer" do you think you need now?

;)

-- Pauley

Guns are a tool. Nothing more. Yes, their purpose is to kill, so what? There are many things whos primary purpose is to kill. Bows and arrows, including crossbows, slingshots, spears, etc. Should they all be banned? How then should people hunt, which is a necessary activity for conservation.

What it comes down to is not what the weapon is designed to do, but how it is used by the human who has the power of personal choice in how to use that weapon.

While I agree that hunting can help conservation, it usually does more harm to a species. In nature, the strongest of a species survive while the weak and less adaptive to change die out. When a hunter goes out looking for deer, is s/he going to look for a scrawny, pathetic, dying specimen? Hell no. He's going to find a buck who has survived many years of hard times (in other words, the strongest). On top of that, it only takes one buck to impregnate any number of does. If there is a population of 100 deer, half male and half female, and you kill all but one male and no females, you could easily still have 50 pregnant females in that generation. Until more hunters adopt actual conservationist methods, it's best to just not use that argument.

Yes, but you know, deer are far from endangered. Indeed we have something of an overpopulation of them in Michigan. Culling the heard helps keep them from starving etc. Yadda yadda. And hunters pay licence fees that support conservation yadda yadda.

I think hunting is disgusting, I would rather that it not exist, but I can't really argue against at least DEER hunting from an ecology standpoint, because it doesn't hold up. Licenced, regulated deer hunting is ecologically sound.

I think what he was arguing was not that people shouldn't hunt deer, but that the particular specimens most choose to hunt are not the most helpful to the conservation effort. e.g. male deer are the more prized kill, but female deer kill does more to prevent the population explosion.

I think hunting is yummy. :)

I mean, really, is there much in this world better than a good piece of venison?
Mmm.

Buffalo! That's some yummy meat too!

I do have a problem with prize hunting where the meat and other useable items from the carcass are discarded. I know a guy here that will even take the bones from deer or game hunting and make beautiful ornate knives out of them.

Oh yeah, totally agreed.

Prize hunting is odious.

i've never eaten hunted buffalo -- just farm-raised. good stuff. very low in fat.

canned hunts are even more revolting than regular "prize" hunting though. fish in a barrel.

See I don't like venison. I think it tasts gamey. That is probably why I'm not a gun nut. ;)

Venison is definitely an acquired taste. You either like it or not. My wife doesn't like venison meat unless it is venison sausage. I personally love the flavor of venison, although it is a tougher meat.

although it is a tougher meat.

Only if you overcook it. ;)

True. Whenever I cook it myself, I can never seem to get it perfect, I somehow always manage to overcook it slightly leaving it a little tough. That's why I need to kill more deer! To keep practicing on how to properly prepare their flesh! :)

(Actually, I have a whole deep freezer full of venison right now, so I probably won't be hunting deer any time soon.)

Now, hunting that is somewhat sport, but definitely beneficial to the environment around here is prairie dog hunting. You don't really use the meat, and the pelt really isn't all that valuable, but around these parts, the prairie dogs are nuisances which destroy crops and farmland. Some ranches will let you hunt on their land for next to nothing just to help get rid of the problem. However, the prairie dog is really dang hard to hunt because they have such good hearing.

marinate your venison in red wine, olive oil and herbs for 18 hours, and you won't have any problem with toughness. :)

prairie dogs are problematic too because they carry plague. i don't know if that's a problem in your area, but i imagine that makes the cleaning-up part of hunting them a bit dicey in plague-infected areas. i've been told in both Utah and Arizona to avoid any direct contact with them.

Thanks. Now I'm friggin' hungry for venison.

*trots off to the freezer to take some venison out for dinner tomorrow*

See what you've done!? :)

Yah, so far Texas has not had a problem with plague prairie dogs.

Well...technically, the crops and farmland are more detrimental to the environment than the prarie dogs, but we won't go down that avenue.

It can be gamey.... but I'm not a fan of gamey venison.

I like venison... but in order for it to be kosher the deer must be domesticated and slaughtered by a shochet.

So the link is dubious. Just sayin'.

See, farm-raised venison just isn't the same, somehow....

Wait, this brings up an interesting question I hadn't thought of before. So there is no such thing as kosher hunting? What are jews who live out in the wilderness supposed to do? Judaism is old enough that surely many jews were hunter/gatherers, so what does Kashrut say about that? And fish can just be pulled out of the sea, but animals have to be slaughtered correctly? Anyway, DO deer chew cud? I'm not sure they do.

Actually I don't think they were many hunter gatherers, Judaism is old but agriculture in that region is far older. The biblical era hebrews were a pastoral/agricultural society. There really wasn't much wilderness in the area even then.

Um, AJ? I keep kosher, and I've eaten kosher venison. Therefore, you can pretty much rest assured that deer do, in fact, chew their cud.

I'm not sure where you get the notion that "many Jews" must have been hunter-gatherers. There is no allowance within Judaism for the consumption of hunted meat. It is strictly forbidden, except, of course, in cases where a life is at stake. By the time we had the Mosaic/Priestly laws that constituted early Judaism/Israelite Temple-based religion, the Israelites were a well established society on farms and in urban centers. We're not nomads, despite appearances.

Ok, but surely there are times when jews have been sustaining themselves by hunting. I know you've already stated the "where a life is at stake" exception, and perhaps that covers it, but still, it just seem odd to me. I mean I'm sure there must have been Jewish pioneers in the old west who hunted for food the same as other settlers. Lots of people over the centuries have lived in situations where they regularly hunt their food, and it just seems to me that clearly, some of them must have been Jewish. I'm just trying to see how that fits into the bigger picture.

There are very few Jews in the world, AJ, and for the most part we stick together, and such has always been the case. When you live by a certain set of rules that are as important to you as Halacha is, historically, to the Jewish people, you plan for it. If you're going to settle somewhere, you bring provisions to last until you have the means by which to acquire more. You don't go off and live somewhere where there's no kosher meat and no means by which to obtain any unless you are a. unconcerned with the laws of kashrut, or b. a vegetarian, or c. forced into it. If you're forced into it, then it is a matter of Pikkuah Nefesh, saving a life. Otherwise, I just don't see why it's so inconcievable to you that Jews don't hunt for food, and don't put themselves into situations where they would have to.

Then again, I also don't see why its so inconcievable to some people that I've never tasted a cheeseburger.

just look at them funny when they say they've never tasted halvah.

"..wierdo."

(mmm, halvah.)

I second your mmmmhalvah.

I try to make it a point to introduce halvah to my non-jewish friends from outside the New York area.

Russ and Daughters on Houston St has the best halvah I've tasted.

the local deli-owned-by-a-jew-but-not-a-classically-jewish-deli-as-you-can-buy-non-kosher-stuff-there, Barry's Bagels, who also wins the most annoying local website award, used to have this great halvah, but they dont carry it anymore because no one bought it.

or so they say. BUT I BOUGHT IT DAMNIT.

Now, the only place in town to buy it is the Kroger near our apartment, which sells the Joyva variety.

I'm just a shiksa, but I lurve me some Joyva. Especially the chocolate-coated bars. omg sooooo goood.

My favorite health-food store also sells halvah in bulk. I don't know who their supplier is, but it's pretty darn good. of course, it has no preservatives and it's just wrapped in plastic wrap, so it doesn't keep as well as those Joyva bars.

the point is, the purpose of the guns we're talking about isn't hunting. it's killing people -- multiply and quickly. and why the hell anyone thinks they *need* to own tools to do that i still cannot fathom.

thanks all.. this thread inspired me enough to go shooting with my friend Jay last night.

:D

I've still "got it".

Pistol or rifle?

both, actually.
I have a Marlin .22 rifle and an EAA Witness .45 (though mine is the "wonder" finish).

I also just picked up a Gamo 440 air rifle yesterday so that I can have something cheap to plink with. It's pretty nice! (mine is sans-scope.. cuz I think scopes are cheating. hehe)

Nice. Other than my previously mentioned FN-FAL M249 (which is more a collection piece than something I use), I have a Colt AR-15, a Savage bolt-action .243 w/ 9x scope which is my hunting gun. I also have a Remington 1100 tricked out as a tactical shotgun (rifle sights, flashlight mount, and fast feed ramp). I inhereted an old 30-30 Winchester rifle from my wife's family that I haven't done anything with.

For pistols, I have a Para Ordinance .45, and a Para Ordinance 9mm. I like the .45, but I'm partial to the 9mm because with high cap mags, it carries 18 rounds, as opposed to 12 with high cap on the .45 I also have a S&W 442 .38+p revolver for times when I need a very concealable weapon or just want to drop it in my pocket holster.

On my to get list is: a long range gun with appropriate sites. Something in the .308 Win category bolt action, a competition bolt action rifle for my wife to shoot, and a bird gun (shotgun, probably another Remington).

..only you guys can take a thread called "voulenteer to campaign" and turn it into an argument about guns, and then finally get along via recipies for venison :D

*shakeshead* :D i love you guys.

Heee.
:)

it's called "the big picture". we disagree on guns, or politics, but agree that food = good. :)

Besides, there's not really many people in the world who are easier to get along with than Nate. And Starfox and I have been happily disagreeing with each other since -- gaah, remember something called ammf? -- without making it personal.

maybe we need to get all the politicians and insurgents of the world together for a big-ass banquet so they can re-focus their priorities and find something they all agree on. i'm not sure we should allow concealed carried weaponry, though. ;-) (joke! jokejokeJOKE!)

agree that food = good.

well yeah, but i'm just waiting for the vegetarians to chime in :D

What? Vegetarians don't think that food is good? ;) Well I some don't given by the looks of some I know. Can you say "don't know how to properly eat vegetarian" or "needs vitamin supplements, stat!" :)

(Note: That's not a slam on vegetarians.)

well, they dont think venison = good :D

Sorry, I missed the

#define food venison

line in your code. ;-)

(Yah, no, I'm not a geek...)

my original post included venison.� venison inherits from class food. although, you're right, i should have used the venison object there instead of food.

not that i'm a vegetarian, but I'd argue that venison or any other hunted meat (NOT trapped!) is the product of a far less abusive way of treating animals than is the current state of large-scale commercial meat production. i'd make an exception for organic, genuine free-range farms that do not mass-transport for slaughter.

ooops. did i just open up that can of worms? *hides*