So maybe they need to revisit their definition of an Assault Rifle... you should write your congressman with suggestions.


So maybe they need to revisit their definition of an Assault Rifle... you should write your congressman with suggestions.

If you disagree with me.... you might be a redneck.

Jeff Foxworthy missed that one.

The redneck thing was an association to the NRA and their agenda in general, not you personally.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

I don't think we need to worry about that.

"Assault Weapons" are used in very, very few crimes.

It's not the guns that are the problem - it is the criminals.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I realized that I really don't know shit about guns, and I think that's the legislations problem. The people that want to limit access to guns probably don't really know a lot about guns. Quite frankly I think very few politicians know anything about guns, both Dems and Reps.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Here you go Matt:

Why in the heck would you attack a guy because he made a speach about bettering the country and cracking down on crime? How about focusing your partisanship back at your kind (George Bush and the like).

As addressed above, he's talking about renewing a ban that did little or nothing to reduce crime. He's not specific about this trace business, so it's hard to claim there is anything substantive there.

So again, please show me where he said anything besides he wants to ban guns and hug criminals?

Do you think those approaches will work, Danny?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Thanks for the details.

I have no problems supporting some weapon bans; obviously I don't think you should be allowed to own a nuclear warhead or the aforementioned grenade launcher. So the line has be be drawn somewhere.

However, I'm not sure this is the place to draw it. A number of these restrictions seem arbitrary and the package as a whole feels excessive. I have an old M-1 carbine I (very occasionally) take out the range and, to be frank, think is pretty cool. 360 days a year it sits unloaded in my closet.
If the government arrived and said that Washington had decided I was no longer allowed to own it I would be a little perturbed and feel a little 1984-ish.
My step-dad is a collector and I suspect about half his collection would be in violation of this bill.
In general, I think people tend to get a lot of enjoyment and satisfaction out of these sort of guns that has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense (or killing people).

I'd be much more likely to support tougher enforcement of existing laws, and THEN (if gun deaths remained a serious problem) consider creating more bans.
But until I feel that existing bans are being enforced, I for one am extremely hesitant to go around making more restrictions.

And if the AWB passes, your M-1 becomes verboten.

While they are not (yet) talking about seizing your banned gun, you could never transfer it. Not even via inheritance.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I'm not arriving at these conclusions given what I read.

He hasn't adopted that so-called "liberal mantra that we must ban guns."

Quite the opposite, and to his credit given hunting and gun ownership is not part of his growing up like many of us, he said the following:

"That wasn't part of my growing up, but I am sympathetic, as I say, to the fact that if you go down to Downstate Illinois, that's an important part of the culture there and people use guns responsibly in those situations."

That scores points with me instead, because many urban and suburban people--and there are plenty of GOPers amongst those gun-skittish 'burb people--see weapons as only the instrument of crime given their different experience with them as opposed to the rural folk who have overwhelmingly positive experiences with them and incorporate it into their lifestyle, such as with hunting and other outdoor activities.

This is not so much a party thing as people often assume. I get very concerned about suburbanites and city folk of any party when it comes to gun laws because of their different and negative experience with guns. If anyone thinks the GOP protects gun rights, I have a former Governor and Bush cabinet member Christine Todd Whitman I'd like to sell you--for 2 cents and then going on sale.

He allieviated some of my concern when he said the following:

"I believe that the majority of NRA members would not object to doing a background check from a bullet that has been used to kill a child on the South Side of Chicago, or the West Side, and find out who sold that gun. That's a law that's already in the books. The problem is that we're not enforcing it."

Once again, he is correct. Many laws are not being enforced. Moreover, there is indeed many shenanigans by gun manufacturers trying to make some very serious hardware and for some very shady purposes to pass legal by playing games with the design so they fit under laws.

His positions on semiautomatics concern me, but when reading all his comments in pari materia, I get a feeling that he would be amenable to balancing the interests and compromising should the NRA and others approach him rather than openly attack him and fund his opponents. Often times, the NRA and gun ownership advocates are their own worst enemies too. By becoming too partnered with the GOP and funding the destruction of Democrats, they force the Democrats to battle the other way and this hurts when they get elected. In the last Senate and state elections, many pro-2nd amendment Dems were elected, and they were won over by not being so hostile and taking rapproachment instead.

Contrary to many gun haters' spins, the majority of gun rights supporters and NRA folk are not all gun wielding AK-47 shooting survivalist crazies as they often disingenuously infer, and do support anti-crime measures that do not interfere with ownership by law-abiding gun owners. He gets that and dismissed such rhetoric--even spoke up for people like us who know the country and its relationship/usage with guns.

As for his comments on love, looking at them in context and the peculiar audience to whom he was addressing and the violent misuse of guns in urban schools and neighbourhoods, I thought he was making a valid point. Certainly the breakdown of black family units in ghettos has led to much of that nonsense (kids thinking they get respect from being a hood with a gun, etc). He could have made his comments more conditional rather than all-inclusive, but then someone starts sounding like John Kerry instead (I feel it is part this but also part than and if this happens then, etc) and who needs that cumbersome ineffective stuff that weighs down a targeted conversation.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

Prehaps, but acknowledging the reality of the crimes as crimes and not simply as mistakes of those who are not loved enough would have helped a good deal. Even a reference to discipline would help: it is the careful avoidance of any words of blame or any reference to an objective moral code that is troubling.

There is a wide gulf between his inspirational and sentimental rhetoric on one hand, and the reality of the brutal murders he is referring to, as well as the callous disregard for human life.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

I didn't see him call gun crimes mistakes.

He was addressing a religious group and I myself wouldn't take the tough-on-crime angle there. He took the more Christian aspects of the problem given the audience. I'm sure the congregation gets the brass knuckles aspects of enforcing crime, but it really isn't the right place for a comprehensive kind of talk like that and I felt his focusing on the Christian aspects of reducing crime was helpful and appropriate given the audience. Quite frankly, I find violence based much on a physical, mental and spiritual deficiency. Too often people forget or underestimate the latter, and it is in environments like that where it is important, IMO, to remind people that a healthy spirituality and good loving family and community goes a long way to building character and a strong neighbourhood and society. Again, I find it encouraging that Obama, a liberal, actually doesn't look upon religion as malicious and abhorrent, but embraces it on its brighter and more constructive aspects.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

It is implied.

It is because this audience might hear the "brass knuckles" aspect from others that I believe Obama should not soften his own comments. Why should there be only two choices: the harsh (and often condescending) view that focues only on the crimes, or the sentimental view that focuses only on the roots? I believe that is a false choice.

My work is now based in Chicago and I read about these killings on a regular basis. It is possible to combine love and respect with acknowledging the reality of the crime.

I am not disagreeing with these statements. I would simply add to them. The audience for Obama is not only the victims - it is the criminals as well.

Again, it is the choice that is troubling. Do you believe the criminals who actually commit these crimes are going to be moved by gentle words? They are murdering people (and in this case usually people in their own community) like dogs in the street. Their lives end here on earth with a bullet through the brain, and they are only in their teens and twenties. Sometimes small children are slaughtered in the crossfire.

This must be acknowledged. It is not un-Christian to face the reality of evil and call it by its name.

I would agree.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

If he made this speech to a general audience, I would have been more concerned ("Uh oh, a 'hug-a-thug' type . . ."). This guy is way too savvy to be that gullible and naive. In fact, he was calling for better enforcement of gun law violations, i.e., prosecute the bastards committing gun crimes. But he was also talking about the breakdown of the black family and spiritual failings in the black community that help lead to the problems, and it surely does play a key role in it.

I've been around churches all my life, and usually anyone ever addressing it has taken his kind of path when addressing the audience. 'Tough-on-crime' was not Jesus' sales pitch. Love was. Now, I know that 'turning the other cheek' isn't going to solve crime in reality, but when I've been in church, we've kept our focus on Jesus and His way once inside and saved the secular stuff that doesn't match exactly up until outside the door. As my parents put it, "it's a church--always remember that."

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

I don't understand why you are separating these: -on-crime' wsa not Jesus' sales pitch. Love was.

Why is it one or the other? The message of the Cross is both. Why would you draw the sacred/secular line between these two issues? There is no grace without acknowledging this.

I also grew up in a church where these things were not always openly expressed. However, at least in the Prayer Book they were - on paper. Part of this is cultural; it was this careful politeness about the most important things in life that irritated me. Perhaps it is in this case as well.

I just believe that the reality of the crime is so dreadful that it needs to be addressed clearly. The irony is that I think Obama has the ability to do it without being a pompous ass.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

I didn't separate the two and neither did he.

He acknowledged that those who commit gun crimes are a menace and doing wrong. That is why he was calling for enforcement of the gun laws to which he referred. Obviously that is not excusing the perpetrators but condemning them and calling for the accountability they deserve under the criminal law to which they are often escaping.

But IMO, he also stressed the other aspects of what the community needs to do, and neglect and family breakdown is certainly part of it. I also find that necessary and refreshing from the blame games, faulting it on Evil Old Cracker Whitey, and other cop outs being pushed all too often by race hustlers. He kept the focus on accountability to one's family and community, and how failing to do that causes load of collateral consequences such as the gun and gang problems of the inner cities.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag