Thread: Candidates stance on guns, etc, according to CNN

i want huckabee to win

Jesus Witch... that's awful!!!

and obama is no longer worth spit

Originally Posted by katt

Jesus Witch... that's awful!!!

Heh, now that I look more closely at it, it is pretty sick. I just picked the first image from Google for 'dead horse', heh.

Originally Posted by danny81

i want huckabee to win

Opposes reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. Opposes mandatory trigger locks for handguns. Opposes waiting periods for gun purchases. Owns a variety of firearms. NRA member. Has a concealed carry permit.

i wonder why.


Joe Biden doesn't sound so bad, but I want either Mike Gravel or Hillary to win.

The thing some of them have about banning concealed weapons except for retired cops n military personnel is a bit stupid imo.

Originally Posted by Witchblade

Heh, now that I look more closely at it, it is pretty sick. I just picked the first image from Google for 'dead horse', heh.

Point taken. LOL.

Originally Posted by SYN

i wonder why.

About which?

Originally Posted by SYN

Joe Biden doesn't sound so bad, but I want either Mike Gravel or Hillary to win.

The thing some of them have about banning concealed weapons except for retired cops n military personnel is a bit stupid imo.

Just a bit....

Originally Posted by WillBrink

About which?




Just a bit....

about danny81s choice of candidate.

Originally Posted by SYN

about danny81s choice of candidate.

Got it, thanx.

wats wrong with huckabee

Originally Posted by danny81

wats wrong with huckabee

I'm off-topic here (sorry) but I'll answer your question with my humble opinion.


Huckabee got 8 out of 10 of the Evangelical vote in Iowa. I don't think he has staying power, nationally.

The New Hampshire primary is 4 days away, and the voters in NH are secular.

Without the Evangelicals, and focusing on issues, Huckabee will prove himself to be what he is. Not very electable, nationally.


As for guns, as a gun owner and former NRA member, I believe the gun issue is a USSC (Supreme Court issue) and also involves individual state laws.

Its pretty simple, if you are a liberal you want to restrict access of law abiding citizens to firearms. If you are a conservative, you do not.



Obama is a fucking idiot. In the roughly 20 years since concealed carry began, only one person has ever been accidentally hurt by a person with a permit. Essentially a gun fell out of someone's holster, and a woman suffered a non-fatal gun show wound. The vast majority of all states, including very liberal ones, have decided to allow concealed carry. There is simply no good reason to ban concealed carry.

Originally Posted by clemson357

Its pretty simple, if you are a liberal you want to restrict access of law abiding citizens to firearms. If you are a conservative, you do not. .

I think it's not productive to throw "liberal" and "conservative" labels around with the issue. Yes, it has become associated as a liberal vs conservative issue, but it's not. Not all "liberals" are some ignorant of the topic, and I think it's more productive to keep it as what it is: a human rights issue, a Const. issue, etc. A few self proclaimed "liberals" actually do "get it."

Liberals Need Not Fear the Right to Bear Arms
Michael Helmeste
Published Thursday, June 7, 2007
Issue 137 / Volume 87

I’m a liberal. My voting record is largely Green Party and Democrat. I’m a strong environmentalist - I respect and treat all life equally. I think equal opportunity is a good concept, and I view our international policy with distaste.

I’m also a gun collector and strong proponent of the Second Amendment.

People have been misled to think that guns are a Republican thing. That’s unfortunate. Gun ownership is the most liberal thing I can imagine. It’s about keeping power in the hands of the people instead of being exclusively the tools of government and the rich. It’s about equality, letting an old woman defend herself as well as a bodybuilder. It’s about being able to protect not only the people that are important to us but the rest of our freedoms as well.

In an effort to garner votes, the Democrats have used guns as a scapegoat like the Republicans have used terror. They’ve created boogymen like “assault weapons” to convince constituents something is being done about the fundamentally human problem of violence. By banning guns, Democrats want you to believe something is being done to bring down crime. Do you know the definition of assault weapon? It’s not a machine gun. It’s a gun that has features like a grip that protrudes from the bottom or a bayonet lug. When’s the last time anyone was bayoneted? Another sensationalized item is hollow point ammo - bullets that flatten when they hit something. The police switched to hollow points because the alternative, round bullets, had a tendency to go straight through objects, ricochet and they also require a greater number of shots to stop attackers.

Guns aren’t even the most damaging method of killing. In the Happy Land Fire, a man killed 87 people with one dollar’s worth of gas. The record number of deaths at a school is held by a person with a bomb, not a gun. A nut job with a car in a crowded area can do more damage than a man with a bag full of guns. Where’s our gas licensing? Let’s ban cars. Americans understand cars; not many understand guns because they’re getting their information from a media that loves to sensationalize. You hear about one psychopath killer, but not about the thousands of people who were saved from being murdered or raped.

Guns are the best tools we as citizens have for defense. Not only has the Supreme Court ruled that police have no obligation to protect individuals, but it’s a physical impossibility for police to be there at all times. We shouldn’t rely on others for self-defense.

Guns also protect our freedoms. They ensure that, if necessary, the people have means to offer resistance to rogue authority. It wasn’t long ago that rogue police officers, after illegally disarming the citizenry, took advantage of Hurricane Katrina to steal much-needed food and supplies. A liberal should know that authority figures commit crimes every day. If we take physical power away from the people, what’s left to balance against governmental abuse? If we take guns away from the people, only criminals and the government will have them.

Banning guns to reduce violence is like playing Whac-A-Mole, remove one weapon and another will pop up. People have one less way to hurt each other out of billions. Unfortunately the unique benefits guns provide are gone, along with the lack of shootings, and there’s no replacing them.

It’s a citizen’s duty to vote with an informed understanding. Next time you see a gun control bill, don’t agree because it looks like common sense. Take the time to educate yourself on the terms, try substituting “gun” for “car” to remove an emotional bias. Place Second Amendment infringements in the context of better understood ones. Should we ban Ferraris because they’re too fast for normal citizens, or revolutionary texts because they’re too powerful? Go to a range and try out a gun. How could someone who’s never shot a gun dictate what types are and aren’t allowed?

Bearing arms is a constitutional right. It’s an empowerment of the citizenry that, like free speech, must be preserved for the most dire circumstances, lest we find it gone when we most need it. Let’s not define a freedom by its abuse, and let’s not give it up just because we don’t understand it.

Michael Helmeste is a UCSB staff member.
__________________________________


Guns are for liberals, too
By: Mike Eber
The Michigan Daily
University of Michigan
Posted: 11/26/07

If there is one issue that alienates me from my liberal counterparts, it's gun rights. So when the Supreme Court decided last week to hear its first Second Amendment case since the 1930s, and as the College Libertarians raffled off a gun voucher, I felt a bit alienated from other liberals. This experience has forced me to re-evaluate what it truly means to be a liberal.

I attribute my liberal leanings to my upbringing in a politically liberal home. Because of the ideology of my parents and older sister, I get plenty of heat for my beliefs about gun ownership. When I turned 21, my mother asked me if I was excited to finally drink legally on campus. I responded that I could really care less about joining my peers in the teeming, sweaty mess people call Rick's. For me, turning 21 was really exciting because I gained the right to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Michigan. I was met with the usual emotional response - comments that I was "sick" and would never be welcome in my mother's house if I chose to buy a gun.

As I wonder what led me to be the black sheep of my liberal family, I remember my middle-school social studies teacher, Mr. Jankowski. Mr. J, as we called him, sported a glass eye and a passion for civil liberties. I now realize Mr. J educated our class indirectly in the political philosophy of John Locke. While teaching lessons on the Bill of Rights, he would explain that this perceived necessity to bear arms is not only for self-defense but is also essential to preserve a democratic society. If a government does not fear an armed populace, then that government is not truly democratic, because it does not need to respect the electorate's authority.

Through our lessons, we learned that a democratic and civilian-controlled military is never to be taken for granted, which necessitates civilian armament. Gun ownership rights are, in fact, the first rights restricted when a democratic society turns for the worst. Weimar Germany was a free society that treated Jews better than most other places in Europe. Then Adolph Hitler came to power. As The New York Times reported in 1938, after Kristallnacht, Hitler declared an edict "forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon."

Consider our presidential election in 2000. Blatantly ignoring the will of Florida voters, the U.S. Supreme Court handed victory to Bush on a technicality. Liberals agreed that there was nothing more to do in appeal, but according to Locke, if a government is guilty of systematic abuse of its power, then citizens have a right install legitimate rule. Instead, liberals stood by willingly after the ruling, acting as if they had just lost a close football game.

We may not need a compelling reason to own a firearm other than the fact that an armed populace is necessary for the security of a free state. Anti-Patriot Act liberals should realize that if they cannot trust the government to respect the privacy of their phone calls or to grant proper due process, then they should probably not also assume the government can be trusted not to disarm its citizens in the name of public safety.

My liberal friends love to cite instances like the Virginia Tech shooting and violent crime statistics as emotional appeals to restrict gun rights. I have heard that guns are more lethal than knives and make society more dangerous rather than promoting general safety. I definitely concede this fact: In the best of all worlds, nobody would need to ensure for his or her own defense. Similarly, in this utopia, we would not need to bother with the constraints of due processes because the government would always be righteous.

Like Ben Franklin and all other liberals, I would not give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety. Weighing public safety against the liberty of gun ownership and establishing militia follow in the same vein. Many Americans scoff at the necessity of modern day minutemen, and I hope they will not be needed in our lifetime. However, preserving the Second Amendment is like having a good insurance policy: You may hate making the monthly payments, but you sure are glad you did when an inferno consumes your house.