US industrial policy is 'socialism' extraordinaire (taxpayer subsidies for R&D are 'gifted' to private corporate ownership).

Indeed, so is the entire US defense establishment.

May I?

Here is one, she decided to fight for gun control after her son was killed.

They ARE socialist and/or communist though. I dont use the terms in a negative manner, but in fact in a truthful manner.

The words themselves simply describe an economic and/or political concept. They are neither good nor evil, positive nor negative.

You chose to interpret them negatively even though I have made it clear i did not intend them as insults.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

For precisely the reasons you so well illustrate, I think any Republican party line conservative would run like hell from gun control "impropriety". The worst thing in the world for that kind of politician is to be seen in opposition to any party agenda.

There are some though. And in fact, lets not forget that Bill Brady was a devout Republican before he was shot.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Oh goodie - you find one misinformed idiot who's husband is a Republican and you assume that means she is a self-identified conservative?

Even if i give you that one, a sole exception does not change the fact that the vast majority of gun-control advocates are self-described liberals.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I find Sarah Brady's misuse and abuse of her husband in this case to be reprehensible. I doubt he is actually in favor of the Brady Campaign. Of course, as he is hardly in control of his mental faculties, who the hell knows?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I'm considered liberal by most people but I've always supported 2nd amendment rights.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's enough for some people. A couple well known 2nd amendment supporters here got angry with me not long ago because I favored taking guns away from disturbed children. In my opinion my stance was not an anti gun stance but others saw my opinion as a threat to their gun ownership.

Well the issue i would have with that is two-fold.

First off, what defines "disturbed"? Second, it is up to the parents to decide if their child is responsible enough - NOT the state.

It is already illegal for a minor to purchase a firearm.

The only way you could prevent a child from having any access to them would be to restrict the rights of his parents.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Like restricting parents right from getting their children drunk? Or using corporal punishment? Which only effect the child and do not pose an immediate threat to the public - unlike a gun.

It is possible to be a gun rights advocate - with qualifications. I think folks are afraid of the extremists of either side getting control.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

It is perfectly legal for a parent to give their OWN CHILD alcohol on their own property.

Corporal punishment is also quite legal.

The only way you could prevent a child from having any access to a firearm is to prevent his PARENTS from having access and that is an infringement upon their rights.

Laws do not prevent anything JHC. They only create criminal and/or civil penalties for those who violate them.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

In most (all?) states, it is unlawful for a child to possess a firearm unless he or she is being directly supervised by an adult.

Matt

Yep - which was the issue i was trying to point out to JHC.

I believe it is all of them. IIRC, thats federal law, not a state one.

The only way to prevent a child from having access to them is to take them from the parents.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

You said: "My best guess regarding the modern liberal's problem with gun ownership is they know what they are advocating in terms of government is highly anti-freedom and the last thing they want is for the people to be able to forcibly remove them from power."

Just reword that please. I don't quite get what you're saying.

As for my elaboration on why the government can prevent ownership on these items, if such weapons are easy to procure, isn't it possible that some kid somewhere can go on a rampage? I know the same can be done with a handgun or a rifle, but assault rifles and other automatic weapons are much more deadly, especially if one is properly trained.

And just because you want something doesn't mean you can have it. If that were the case, our global view of freedom should allow nuts like Kim Jong-Il to have nukes along with Iran (granted, this is an extreme example of your ideas). Plus, I believe that our military has, on several occasions, confiscated automatic weapons from Iraqi houses. If we're worried about terrorists there having automatic weapons, shouldn't we be worried about it here as well?

Here we see the common misnomer, fed by an ignorant press.

"Assault Weapons" is a term invented by the gun ban movement, and catapulted into the public eye by the idiotic "Assault Weapons Ban" under the Clinton Administration. That feel-good piece of legislation banned certain firearms based on their cosmetic appearance, without any regard for their actual functional capabilities. Nobody has ever demonstrated where a single crime was prevented by this waste of legislative breath.

"Assault Rifles" are not automatic weapons. An automatic weapon fires more than one shot per pull of the trigger - a "machine gun".

So called "assault rifles" fire one shot with each pull of the trigger. They are not automatic weapons.

Please note - it is legal for a civilian to own a fully-automatic firearm with the proper paperwork from the BATF (and a wheelbarrow full of cash). Never, ever, in the history of the United States has a lawfully owned fully automatic firearm ever been used by a civilian in a violent crime.

In fact, the only document use of a lawfully owned fully automatic firearm in a crime was when a police officer used his issue full auto weapon to rob a bank!

Matt

I thought it was clear, but let me see if i can elaborate.

Much of what is proposed by the modern "liberal" is all about restricting personal freedom. Nanny-state government if you would. Restricting things from people "for their own good". This kind of thing does tend to irritate those who are quite capable of making their own decisions without government intervention and eventually will lead to a less-than-friendly response from the general public.

Some examples would be socialized medicine, anti-smoking laws, the war on drugs, private property restrictions, environmental regulations, and my personal favorite - the TSA.
Sure it is possible, but then again, all KINDS of things are possible if something is misused. Just because someone MIGHT misuse them doesnt give the government the authority to restrict ownership. If you believe it does, please by all means, cite the section of the Constitution granting government that authority.
As a matter of fact - yes it does, assuming I can afford it of course. Where do you get the idea that you or anyone else has the authority or right to restrict my ownership and legal use of ANYTHING?

Owning an automatic weapon in no way threatens you. Misusing it might, but owning it does not.
Kim Jong-Il HAS nukes my friend and there is nothing the US can do about it. We dont govern Korea.
You may have noticed we're at war over there.

For the record, you may also wish to consider when the Civil War ended, the South went home with their weapons. Even after a full-on revolt (and no, i dont want to get into a discussion about the political issues surrounding the Civil War, thats for another thread), the government recognized there was no legitimate or legal way to restrict weapons ownership by the very people who had JUST used them against the government. If there was no legal way then, perhaps you could explain to me how it could be legal NOW?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.