Who would you like to see be the Dem. runner for President?

Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by pintail21, Jun 28, 2003.

  1. webfootedquacker

    webfootedquacker Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,621
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Location:
    Lou, Ky
    " What I need is some anything that demonstrates there is in fact an agenda on the part of the left to remove from us our hunting guns."


    I can't believe I would try to debate anyone who uttered such an assinine statement, but I guess I will humor myself. I realize that as a trial attorney you must listen to all that drivel the Dem parties spits out, but you cetainly don't have to repeat it, as long as you pad the Dems pockets they will continue to protect the bottom of the barrel, also known as trial attorneys.

    For starters, take the assault weapons ban. All of your little cronies spearheaded that ban...Schumer, Feinstein.... the whole little bunch. And as I have asked you before, you just conveniently forgot to answer, ......What is the difference between a semi-auto 30.06 deer rifle and an assault weapon?

    You have mentioned before that you don't know. Which makes me wonder why you would come on here in the first place pretending to be such an expert, but in reality know very little about the issue.

    But since you don't know, I will tell you.

    The difference......assault weapons have suppresors, bayonet lugs and pistol grips. ( all visual differences)
    AND the only other difference is that assault weapons are generally smaller caliber and therefore less dangerous than a typical deer rifle. THATS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.

    So when you say the Dems have no desire to take my "hunting" guns. I call a BIG FAT BULLSHIAT on ya.

    They have already been succeful at banning guns that are less powerful and less dangerous than my hunting rifle.......therefore your attempt to convince others that guns MORE powerful and MORE dangerous are of no interest to them, ain't flying.
     
  2. waterpig

    waterpig Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    3,564
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Location:
    Currituck, NC
    Dems Have Not Dropped Gun Control Agenda

    Sunday, June 22, 2003

    By John Lott, Jr.



    Has the gun control (search) issue really disappeared?

    Some think that Democrats, chastised by the loss of the presidency of 2000 and the loss of the Senate in 2002, have learned the risk of supporting gun control the hard way. Some even argue that there is a more fundamental change in Democratic beliefs on gun control.

    Yet, as Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi (search) recently said, Democrats (search) will wait and revisit the guns “when the issue is ripe.”

    New regulations are still being put forward, but legislation gets more attention, both from the press and other legislators, when there is a chance it will pass. There is surely no shortage of new gun control proposals at either the federal or state level.

    — Assault weapons ban. In Congress, House Democrats are pushing for a vastly expanded ban (including all semi-automatic shotguns (search) that are widely used for hunting and skeet shooting) and, among other features, gives future U.S. Attorney Generals the ability to ban any semi-automatic rifle they classify as not for “sporting” uses. Senate Democrats propose slightly expanding the ban only because they acknowledge that their most desired legislation would never get passed.

    — Judicial appointments. Just last week Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor (search), a Republican, nominated by President Bush for a judgeship on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, was criticized by Senate Democrats for supporting a court decision that requires judges to hold a hearing before they can order a person’s gun be taken away.

    — Filibuster. Senate Democrats threaten to filibuster legislation designed to rein in abusive litigation targeting the firearms gun makers. The suits threaten the very existence of gun makers; law suits have already forced several gun manufacturers into bankruptcy, some before they even had their day in court. While moderate Democrats support the bill, most Democratic Senators appear willing to fight against this to the very end.

    — New federal regulations. In June, Sen. Jon Corzine and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, both Democrats, put forward legislation giving the Department of Justice sweeping powers to regulate the design, manufacture and distribution of guns. Just at the end of May, Sen. Frank Lautenberg proposed banning large caliber guns and other new rules that regulate who can buy guns at gun shows.

    — New state regulations. From gun storage laws (search) in New York to taxing gun show transfers in Illinois to banning large caliber guns in California to fining parents whose children play with toy guns in Maryland, Democrat state officials across the country are pushing for more gun control laws.

    Even Howard Dean (search), the former Vermont governor and most pro-gun rights supporter among Democratic presidential candidates, wants to renew the so-called semi-automatic assault weapons ban (search) as well as regulate gun shows.

    Surprisingly, the Bush administration has basically left most Clinton gun control policies (search) in place. True, Attorney General John Ashcroft decided not to keep long-term records of gun sales and President Bush supports important legislation to curb abusive lawsuits. But the Bush administration has taken few other actions. Clinton administration policies have simply been allowed to continue on everything from existing policies banning the importation of guns to no longer requiring that ROTC (search) military training involve how to fire a gun.

    Even when it comes to arming pilots (search), the administration has twice thwarted congressional legislation. Now over 21 months after Sept. 11, the administration has dragged its feet so that only 44 pilots out of over 100,000 pilots are allowed to carry guns on planes and there are no additional approvals in sight.

    In contrast, at the state level Republicans are slowly but steadily rolling back gun regulations. During the last couple of months, concealed handgun laws (search) have been passed in Republican dominated legislatures in Alaska, Colorado, and Minnesota. In Missouri, final passage is uncertain and depends upon whether the Republican dominated legislature can override the Democratic governor’s expected veto. The only exception to this Democrat/Republican divide was in New Mexico, which also passed a concealed handgun law this year (albeit an extremely restrictive one), and where Democrats completely control the state legislature and governorship.

    The lopsided coverage of the costs and benefits of guns in the media and the government ensures that the push for more regulations will not go away. In 2001, the three major networks — ABC, NBC, and CBS — devoted about 190,000 words’ worth of national television news stories on gun crimes but not one single story about someone using a gun to defend themselves or someone else. Even those who follow the news the closest are unlikely to know that when surveys of crimes committed with guns are compared with studies of defensive gun use, the best estimates indicate that people use guns defensively to stop crime 4.5 times more frequently than guns are used to commit crime. The only news network that carried any defensive gun stories that year was the Fox News Channel.

    Over the last decade it is simply impossible to find one study by either the U.S. Justice Department (search) or the Treasury that measures the benefits from people owning guns. For example, every year the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (search) puts out a list of the top 10 guns used in crime, but why not one time put out a list of the top 10 guns used by people to stop crime?

    For congressional Democrats, the decision not to push new gun control as a top agenda item is simply because Republicans control both houses of congress. Their strong anti-gun sentiment has not abated. Just two more Democratic senators and 13 more Democratic House members and gun control legislation would go from fond dreams to reality.

    John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of recently released The Bias Against Guns (Regnery)
     
  3. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    WFQ, I've answered that particular bit of nonsensical circular reasoning no fewer than five times (in a single thread no less). You must be as tired of typing it as I am of reading it. As before, whether you choose to recognize it or not, assault weapons are a certain, definable class of weapons that *can be* distinguished from shotguns and deer rifles in all ways. That you keep bringing this up just demonstrates that you are not interested in anything but your own point of view on this subject, which, again, is not very impressive considering you didn't contrive the argument yourself. And, as before, please go and reread my posts in direct response to this monotonous line of reasoning you insist on wheeling out every time we have this discussion to refresh yourself as to where it ends. To keep barfing this up rather than pointing to the evidence you insist exists, but are unable to produce is getting old in that it does absolutely nothing to further the discourse -- WHATEVER you might think of my postion on this subject. Please do not regurgitate this thing again. You've made the point. We've all heard it and we all understand it. Try and go beyond it just once.

    As to the John Lott, article. I've already read it and it's already been posted in every forum on this site at least once -- twice here that I know of. Laying aside the fact that John Lott's so-called contributions to academic literature have been widely discredited by academia far and wide, and the fact that he is a very vocal pro-gun ideologue who it is entirely fair to say can be viewed as an NRA stooge, there is nothing in that article that provides anything beyond the sheer speculation, surmise and 'maybe-could-be' that any of this will necessarily lead to bans of hunting guns, as opposed to assualt rifles and/or handguns. That's the issue. Hunting guns. Remember that gun control doesn't necessarily mean all guns, even if the NRA and Mr. Lott would have you believe otherwise.

    You guys keep confusing the issues pursuant to your training on the subject and insisiting that is good enough to prove the point. I'm simply saying it's not.
     
  4. Penns-Woods

    Penns-Woods Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    563
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Location:
    Shippensburg, PA
    Typical DGH reply: Quotes himself as his only source.

    As to "assault weapons" not being used by hunters, that is pure BS. Ar15's are quite popular among varmint and predator hunters. Of course DGH gets around this by dismissing these people as not "real" hunters. See, only he can decide who is and is not a hunter. Also, as I recall, our "assault weapons" expert did not even know that the Assault Weapons Ban and Brady Act were two separate laws.

    As for Lott, just who has discredited him far and wide? Maybe you can cite a source? You know, one published in a refereed journal of some sort. Of course, it will need to be someone who can actually understand Lott's econometric models.

    Remember, if DGH says it's true, it's true. If you say it's true, you must have irrefutable proof. :rolleyes:
     
  5. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    LOL! Maybe you aren't smart enough to know how a civilized discourse works. Too funny. What would you have me quote as a source that the dems don't want our hunting guns? There is no source for that, only purported sources for the converse of that. There are no sources for the notion that dems believe the moon to be made of cheese and in flying carpets and in genies in a bottle, either. But you would have me provide a link to these notions to dispel them just because you say they are true? Nonsense.
    And who ever said assault rifles can't be used for hunting? I certainly didn't. I said that doesn't matter to the issue at hand. Stay on topic, PW. You might eventually come out on top of a debate with me if you do -- Oh! -- I see you are still smarting about your First Amendment blunder by bringing up that the AWB....lol!, you are so, so predictable.

    Here are the links you are looking for.

    http://www.cse.unsw.EDU.AU/~lambert/guns/lott/

    http://reason.com/hod/debate1.shtml

    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/339/27/2029

    I am sure there are more; these popped up on the first page of google search "john lott gun control." I didn't read them, either, as the only purpose to prividing these was to prove the point you asked me to make, i.e., there is plenty in the literature to discredit John Lott's academic work. See how it works? I say something, someone says no and I prove the point. You want to argue the contentions made in these links, write the authors you disagree with, not me.

    Still waiting for proof of unicorns, PW, failed to provide any.
     
  6. Penns-Woods

    Penns-Woods Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    563
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Location:
    Shippensburg, PA
    Wow, websites you did not even bother to read prove your point. I guess these prove we never landed on the moon. Moon Landing
    Another

    And to what First Amendment blunder of mine do you refer?

    I forgot, DGH is always right. Even when he knows not what he speaks.
     
  7. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    The point you asked me to make -- having nothing to do with the topic at hand -- was whether Lott has been criticized and discredited in academic literature. You asked for links in support of that point, I provided links in support of that point. Every one supports that point. I am sure there are more. So yes, the links simply prove the point.

    The moon?!? Another absurd off-topic offering, I see. Well done. YOU must be right about something by giving us these. Don't bother explaining, we will try and figure out what that is on our own.

    Your First Amendment blunder: It's at the bottom; enjoy reading yourself at your ignorant best talking about something you know absolutely nothing about.

    Oh, the reason I brought it up in the first place: if you keep on reading, you will see you raised your "AWB-Brady Bill" defense to that one, too. You love that one. It's the only one you got. While you're there, you might want to take a glance at my comments regarding your tendency to focus on superficial ****. Looks like you could use a refresher.
     
  8. whistlers

    whistlers Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan Sugar Island
    I don't buy into the NRA' version of events myself. They seem to thrive on exaggerating threats to gun ownership, in order to perpetually fund their pet party. Just like union leadership exaggerates threats to collective bargaining, and labor in general to it's membership to continually convince them to contribute to P.A.L., and P.A.C. funds so the money can continually be funneled to it's party of choice. Meanwhile both respective parties do just enough to ensure that the threat won't disappear, or so would the monies they recieve to protect their "vital interests"! ;)
     
  9. Tom Phillips*

    Tom Phillips* Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,622
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area, California
    There is more when it matters.

    Do a search on my posts and see.

    This discussion isn't worth my time except to GET a laugh. :D

    Tom*
     
  10. Penns-Woods

    Penns-Woods Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    563
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Location:
    Shippensburg, PA
    I am sorry I ever posted a reply to DGH. All it did is allow him to continue hijacking another topic to turn it into a "DGH-is-right-and-you-are-all-idiots" thread. :(

    BTW, if you would like to continue our First Amendment discussion, I believe the thread you linked to above would be the proper place.
     

Share This Page