PDA

View Full Version : John Alden-Banning handguns will save lives


AW-FANATIC
04-03-2006, 9:15 AM
I just recived an email from this yayhoo. Man am I steamed. I thought I would post what I got and strongly urge everyone here not to give this guy the time of day. Heres the email I just recieved. :mad: :mad: :mad:

April 3, 2006

Dear Friends,

While only one-third of all firearms owned in the U.S. are handguns, they account for over two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. Studies have shown that handguns are the most dangerous, the most deadly, and the least necessary weapons. The bottom line? A statewide handgun ban will save lives.

Those of you who have been reading our Roots of Change pieces won't be surprised that I am taking a bold stand on a controversial issue. I know there are strong emotions surrounding this debate. But if our goal is to keep our neighborhoods and our children safe, this ban is the right thing to do.

Banning handguns will not infringe on the formation of a well-regulated militia. Banning handguns will not take away rifles and shotguns used by hunters. But banning handguns will take theses dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and make our homes and communities much safer. I hope you will read my essay (the full text is included below). Please leave a comment on our blog or forward the essay to a friend who might be interested in our campaign. Please also visit our website: www.aldenforassembly.com. I value your feedback, comments, and opinions.

Together, we will win the fight for the bold progressive solutions that will create real progress in California.

Sincerely,




John Alden




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Banning Handguns

By John Alden
Democrat for Assembly

Sometimes, the most important stands are the toughest to take. One simple way to dramatically improve our community safety, especially for our children, is to unequivocally ban the sale and possession of handguns for private use.

Certainly, handguns are a necessary safety tool for our police officers and security personnel. Yet some individuals still cling to the notion that pistols and other one-handed guns are necessary for their own use. But the facts on handguns speak for themselves: In the hands of private citizens, handguns don't improve safety. They endanger all of us, and they do so at a great cost; both in taxpayer dollars and more tragically, in human lives.

Handguns are responsible for a disproportionate amount of gun violence and fatalities in this country. While only one-third of all firearms owned in the US are handguns, they account for over two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year-more than 20,000 deaths, just from handguns, in 2003.

And in California, handguns were used in more than 85% of the 7,850 gang-related homicides between 1992 and 2003. The cost of these injuries and fatalities is substantial. In 1994, the 135,000 gunshot injuries in the US produced lifetime medical costs of 2.3 billion, half of which was paid by taxpayers.In addition to saving lives, a handgun ban would dramatically reduce these costs, saving California tax payers tens of millions of dollars per year that could be used to fund education, environmental protection and healthcare.

Most handgun owners say they want their weapons for personal safety. Rarely, however are firearms used in self defense. Rather, the simple presence of a gun in the home endangers everyone around it. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting than used in self defense.

It is 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide than in self defense. And that gun is 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self defense. Gun control legislation has proven to be an effective means of reducing gun violence. Not surprisingly, the states with the highest per capita gun death rates also have some of the most lax gun safety laws. Yet on the congressional level, Republicans have worked to block gun control legislation.

The Brady Bill, passed by Bill Clinton in 1994, required a 5-day waiting period for the purchasing of firearms, and mandated a national criminal background check on purchasers buying handguns. The law expired in 1998 and Republicans have blocked its re-enactment. In 2004, the Republican congress enacted a law that forbids the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from making public the data that trace a gun's history, which can be vital in identifying irresponsible dealers. And last fall, lawmakers placed an amendment in ATF's spending bill that forbids such trace information from being used as evidence in court.

Clearly, it is up to the states to pass the legislation we need. Tougher gun laws, including a ban on the private sale and ownership of handguns, have substantial support in California. Last November, the residents of San Francisco voted in favor of a citywide ban on private sales and possession of handguns. Measure H passed with 58% of voters in favor of the ban.

Such legislation needs to be enacted at the state level. While many of the handguns involved in violent crimes and homicides are not acquired legally, banning the sale of handguns will dramatically reduce the number of these weapons in circulation. If there are fewer of them, they will be harder to purchase illegally. Fewer handguns will reduce the dangers to police officers' lives, and allow them to take any gun they discover off the streets.

Among the 26 industrialized nations, 86% of all gun deaths of children under the age of 15 occurred right here in the United States. In 1998, the United States had 32 times more homicides by handgun than Germany. We had 78 times more than Canada. And we had 620 times more homicides by handgun than Japan. The simplest reason: We have too many handguns.The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which is cited as the shield against new gun laws, says in total: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Banning handguns will certainly not infringe upon the formation of a well-regulated militia. Banning handguns will not take away rifles and shotguns used by hunters and those who target shoot as a sport. Banning handguns will take these dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and make our homes and communities much safer.

Please join me in calling for a ban on private handgun sales and possession in California.

Of all firearms, handguns have repeatedly proven to be the most dangerous, the most deadly, and the least necessary. A handgun ban will save lives, pure and simple. Calling for their ban may be controversial. But if our goal is to keep our neighborhoods and our children safe, it's the right thing to do.



Paid for by Friends of John Alden. FPPC ID# 1274732

CSkyhawk72
04-03-2006, 10:17 AM
Yikes! This guy really scares me!

Here in SF, we never thought the handgun ban would pass, but it did. Now this arsehole wants to take it to a state level? We can't let this clown get elected. We should give him and Chris Daly (Board of Stupidvisors, San Fransicko) concrete sneakers, and some diving lessons somewhere in the bay.

taloft
04-03-2006, 10:18 AM
another misinformed moron.

PanzerAce
04-03-2006, 10:20 AM
God I hate people like this, notice that he never touches on the issue of self defense in the entier essay. And I notice he got the expiration year of the Fed AWB wrong. And as for not making gun histories public, how does that prevent the BATFE from finding 'irresponsible' dealers (Im going to assume he means any dealer that sells hand guns).


EDIT: nm, I just saw the part about self defense.

hehe, Ironically, I am just reading a book right now for a class called 'How to lie with statistics' :D

EDIT 2: Just posted this on his blog thing, dont know if it went through though:

You know, I never thought I would see the day when someone would be so missinformed about firearms to actually try and ban hand guns across the entire state. I notice that while you say that handguns are not needed for a well regulated militia, you seem to ignore the fact that chaplains and other non-combat personel (MPs, truck drivers, etc) in the military were issued pistols, primarily because they could not carry a rifle or a shotgun in their duties.
And if we ban handguns, who do you think is going to be turning them in? The law abiding citizens that are not going to kill anybody will, but the criminals that are the real problem will not. And if you somehow are able to ban hand guns, what is going to stop you from then pointing out that shotgun and rifle accidental deaths and murders have taken a sharp increase in frequency, and then banning those?

461
04-03-2006, 10:24 AM
Plenty of idiots, nice that now there is no doubt on this one.

blacklisted
04-03-2006, 10:26 AM
Banning handguns will take them out of the hands of criminals.

:mad: :eek: :confused:

PanzerAce
04-03-2006, 10:29 AM
damn, looks like my comment will never get up there, it says it is "awaiting moderation". Guess he doesnt much care for the 1A either

Veritas_223
04-03-2006, 11:24 AM
Be civil but someone correct this guy!

:)

http://aldenforassembly.com/blog/?cat=1

461
04-03-2006, 11:30 AM
I posted a response on his site, but it says it's awaiting moderation which I assume to mean "no negative responses will see the light of day". I'll check back later but I would be shocked to see my response and it was completely civil.

LeoC
04-03-2006, 11:47 AM
OMG what a moron! I was willing to give it a chance, I read his essay. The guy flat out LIES multiple times:
But the facts on handguns speak for themselves: In the hands of private citizens, handguns don't improve safety.
37 states with Shall-Issue CCW issue and no upsurge in crime beg to disagree here.
And in California, handguns were used in more than 85% of the 7,850 gang-related homicides between 1992 and 2003 .
So banning everybody from owning handguns would stop gang members, who already cannot buy a gun legally, from killing each other?

Gun control legislation has proven to be an effective means of reducing gun violence. Not surprisingly, the states with the highest per capita gun death rates also have some of the most lax gun safety laws
I call complete and total BS on this one. Unless he misspelled "restrictive" as "lax"... a common spelling mistake by anti-gunners (and morons)

The Brady Bill, passed by Bill Clinton in 1994, required a 5-day waiting period for the purchasing of firearms, and mandated a national criminal background check on purchasers buying handguns. The law expired in 1998 and Republicans have blocked its re-enactment.
He apparently doesn't know when the bill actually expired (as PanzerAce noted). The Brady Bill passed with NRA SUPPORT because it created the National Instant-Check system. Once the NICS was up, the need for 5-day waiting periods ended (the 5 days was to give the seller time to run a background check on the buyer the pre-NICS way). Of course, places like CA couldn't let common sense make life easier for gun owners so they kept their 10-day waiting period.

Tougher gun laws, including a ban on the private sale and ownership of handguns, have substantial support in California. Last November, the residents of San Francisco voted in favor of a citywide ban on private sales and possession of handguns. Measure H passed with 58% of voters in favor of the ban.
58% of the 30% of registered voters that actually voted on Prop H does not equal "substantial support in California". Since when is San Francisco representative of all of California anyway?:mad:

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which is cited as the shield against new gun laws, says in total: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Banning handguns will certainly not infringe upon the formation of a well-regulated militia.
The word "ban" and the word "infringe" can't really be separated, Mr. Alden.

LeoC
04-03-2006, 11:50 AM
I submitted the above post (minus the first line) to the website... but surprise surprise it won't show up. Sure is strange that he invites people to post, yet won't actually put the words up. I have no doubt that actually allowing people to read other's responses would utterly destroy his campaign, so guess I don't blame him :rolleyes:

shopkeep
04-03-2006, 11:52 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to see a statewide handgun ban come up in 2007 or 2008 if a Democrap gets elected Governor. 58% isn't a huge majority in a highly liberal city like San Francisco, and the ban in Frisco is fairly unpopular as it is.

I don't see a statewide ban passing unless it allows those of us with handguns to keep them. Needless to say with this type of attitude going statewide it's time to start purchasing a handgun every month.

C.G.
04-03-2006, 12:19 PM
He is as confused as Koretz. If you read down further he was also for clemency for Tookie:

That’s why I strongly support clemency for Stanley “Tookie” Williams. Williams is the first to say that his background as founder of the notorious “Crips” gang is heinous. But his work for humanity as an inmate at San Quentin prison has led to two Nobel Peace Prize nominations. He is working diligently to redeem himself and pay for his crimes by keeping children out of gangs, and bringing peace and justice to the streets.
The clemency decision could be just hours away. That’s why I urge you to email Governor Schwarzenegger right now at governor@governor.ca.gov and urge him to grant clemency to Williams. This act will reduce William’s sentence from death to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This is still a severe, irrevocable, and appropriate sentence.

AW-FANATIC
04-03-2006, 12:30 PM
Could someone post this guys rhetoric over at AR15.com. I havent registered there yet. I would like to be sure everybody possible can find out what he is about. Serves this guy right for sending me an email like that.

snobordr
04-03-2006, 12:51 PM
I just have to wonder how freakin clueless you have to be to believe that gunlaws affect criminals. Someone should have dropped that guy on his head as a kid a few more times.

DrMUR
04-03-2006, 1:27 PM
I love the extensive research done on his part and how he includes references to all his sources. I summarized and fixed his essay:

Banning Handguns

By John Alden
Democrat for Assembly

I have absolutely no clue of what I'm writing about (Alden); however, I believe we should enact a statewide ban on all handguns. I'm a f***ing moron (MUR 1).

Works Cited:
Alden, John. "Banning Handguns." John Alden for Assembly. 31 Mar. 2006. <http://www.aldenforassembly.com>.
MUR, Doctor. John Alden is a F***ing Moron. 2nd ed. Orange, PRK: MUR Inc., 2006.




Paid for by Informed Citizens who Disagree with the Views of John Alden. FPPC ID# 1274732

EBWhite
04-03-2006, 1:46 PM
Nice, lol....

this guy is another reason why i would never vote for any democrats...
i posted on his blog and made some nice comments, we will see if it even sees the light of day

ekimatuan
04-03-2006, 1:49 PM
I posted this:
I don't understand how you can state that banning any class of gun would take guns out of the hands of criminals. By definition, criminals do not obey the law. All any gun ban does is remove them from the hands of law abiding citizens. Studies have shown that criminals support gun bans because they feel safer committing crimes when the populace is not armed.

Please educate yourself on this matter instead of using it as a politcal hot button in order to obtain publicity. A quick and easy start would be Penn and Teller's 'Bull****' episode on gun control as well as what I believe was called the '10 stupidest things' segment on either 60 minutes or Dateline a year or so ago.


It looks like this guy rarely green lights posts. The only one I daw was a comment on what a terrific blog he is running...

Go figure.

NeoWeird
04-03-2006, 1:59 PM
How exactly does banning the ownership of something prevent it from getting into the hands of someone who is illegally in possession of it already? A criminal is exactly that, a person who breaks crimes; so why would they care about illegally owning a handgun (if they were banned) when they are already breaking the law to begin with? It is silly to think that someone who would commit a felony like murder would be dissuaded from comminting the crime by the threat of a possible misdemeanor. What really would happen would be that law abiding citizens would regretfully give up their handgsun, in many cases their only form of immediate defense, and you would leave MILLIONS defenseless. That of course would require a larger police force to not only enforce the law, but also to protect those who would feel insecure and unsafe in their own home. The simple fact is that any firearms ban hurts law abiding citizens and does nothing to prvent crime, and that is a fact, because criminals will break the law no matter what it is, as I have already covered.

While you make your intentions seem noble and righteous (I will not say they are otherwise, only you may know that), but I fear your focus is in the wrong place while your heart is in the right. Most crimes involving firearms are done with illegally owned weapons; so why not spend the money to enforce those laws? Banning a firearm doesn't remove the already illegal weapon from the crimainl, but enforcment does. The arrest of an illegal arms dealer, even a small time dealing thug on the street, that prevents even a handful of illegal firearms from entering our state would not only prevent murders, but muggings, robberies, assaults, and many more crimes, including the severity of gang violence. This is the heart of the problem, and the issue that should be dealt with.

Also, to anyone who would like to tear this mesage down, be it modderators, site managment, campaign electives, or even just fellow Ameircans and Californians; I have one question to ask you: Why would someone speaking their mind, a God given right that our forefathers faught and died for be so aggrivating and blasphemous to you? This will probably never even hit the mainline and will probably only be viewed by a handful at most, so I will aim this next question at you select few who protects the eyes of the rest; Does conveying the message of your campaign mean so much to you, that you would censor the voice of the people, our fist and most important right granted to us by the Constitution, just to ensure that the people you are trying to reach hears your message and your message alone? Is that really what America was created on, and defended against all these years?

Then again, what good are two perfectly good and free sheep outside the flock when you can have one lame sheep in the herd, right?

I hope I talked quietly enough, because my big stick sure was trying to talk.

ETA: "Someone who breaks crimes"

...

...leave me alone, I'm sick......

Charliegone
04-03-2006, 5:09 PM
S*** list

Diane Feinstein
Chuck Schumer
Chris Daly
Don Perata
Paul Koretz
Mark Leno
Hillary Clinton
Ted Kennedy

OH YEAH!
now..
Chuck Alden:mad:

NeoWeird
04-03-2006, 5:09 PM
responses are up

PanzerAce
04-03-2006, 5:59 PM
OMFG!!! ALL of the negs went up.

AW-FANATIC
04-03-2006, 6:10 PM
I just read all of the responses. Not one person who agrees with this guy. Even the million mom march lady didnt agree. Sounds like a majority of the posts were from guys here, but im sure some come from others. Hopefully he will see he so far off base with the general public he will change his tune. Still wont get my vote, but hopefully it will change his way of thinking.

Builder
04-03-2006, 6:21 PM
Between the years 2000-2004, 1095 people across the US defended themselves with deadly outcome; justifyable homicide. 66% of those were defended by the use of a hand gun. It is quite *possible* that if it weren't for the hand gun, there would actually be 726 MORE deaths under a hand gun ban.
Builder

KenpoProfessor
04-03-2006, 8:38 PM
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-- Thomas Jefferson, "Commonplace Book" (1774-1776), quoting from "On Crimes and Punishment," by criminologist Cesare Beccaria (1764)



"The Constitution of the United States shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-- Samuel Adams



"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest."
-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress (July 1775)



"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
--Thomas Jefferson, Draft Virginia Constitution (1776)



"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
-- Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)



"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46



"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography



"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-- Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, (1787 - 1788)



"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;"
-- Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D



"In England, the bills of rights were not demanded merely of the Crown, as withdrawing a power from the royal prerogative; they were equally important, as withdrawing power from parliament. A large proportion of the most valuable of the provisions in Magna Charta, and the bill of rights in 1688, consists of a solemn recognition, of limitations upon the power of parliament; that is, a declaration, that parliament ought not to abolish, or restrict those rights. Such are the right of trial by jury; the right to personal liberty and private property according to the. law of the land; that the subjects ought to have a right to bear arms..."
-- Joseph Story, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Book III at 718, § 1858



"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-- Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette (February 20, 1788)



"...and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
-- Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 NKJV



"The framers gave us the Second Amendment not so we could go deer or duck hunting but to give us a modicum of protection against congressional tyranny."
-- Walter Williams


-------------------------------------------------------------

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

California-Quigley
04-03-2006, 8:56 PM
Sifu,

Fantastic post.... I like the quotes......

"to hear is to doubt, to see is to be deceived, but to feel is to believe."

461
04-04-2006, 7:37 AM
I for one have to respect the guy for posting the negative responses. I'm shocked as hell that he would allow them to be on his site but you've got to respect people who would allow their detractors to be heard on their own campaign site. Still wouldn't vote for him in a million years but you gotta respect him.

Red Flag
04-04-2006, 9:07 AM
This is my favorite....soccer mom


John: I’m a charter member of the Million Mom March .. attended the first one on the Mall in D.C. … which is not to claim any sort of moral high ground here but rather to establish the side of the fence on which I stand .. in favor of gun control. That said, I think the unifying position is not a unilateral ban on all handguns, but rather a registration and licensure program for all guns. We register automobiles and we license their drivers - there’s absolutely no reason why we can’t register guns and license those who wish to own/carry them. Automatic weapons are an entirely different issue - the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to own as many front loading muskets as we wish … but taking an “originalist” position does not take one to a Constitutional right to own an Uzi.
Let’s see if we can work with gun owners to establish a functional gun registration/licensure program in California - this would do more for gun safety and the safety of our kids than any outright ban on handguns. Besides any talk of an outright ban plays right into the NRA’s hands and into the nightmares of those gun owners who might otherwise be our allies.
Suzie
Comment by Susan Kidder — April 3, 2006 @ 1:36 pm (http://aldenforassembly.com/blog/?comments_popup=9#comment-53)

DrjonesUSA
04-04-2006, 9:14 AM
Here's what I posted on his website:


Mr. Alden, you state "But banning handguns will take theses dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and make our homes and communities much safer."

If banning handguns will truly get them out of the hands of criminals, I'd like you to explain to me how it is that murder, rape and robbery are still common occurrences, seeing as how we have laws against those acts.

If you can explain to me exactly how and why criminals will abide by a law banning handguns, when they do not abide by laws forbidding murder, rape and robbery, then you will have my vote.

DrjonesUSA
04-04-2006, 9:15 AM
This is my favorite....soccer mom


John: I’m a charter member of the Million Mom March .. attended the first one on the Mall in D.C. … which is not to claim any sort of moral high ground here but rather to establish the side of the fence on which I stand .. in favor of gun control. That said, I think the unifying position is not a unilateral ban on all handguns, but rather a registration and licensure program for all guns. We register automobiles and we license their drivers - there’s absolutely no reason why we can’t register guns and license those who wish to own/carry them. Automatic weapons are an entirely different issue - the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to own as many front loading muskets as we wish … but taking an “originalist” position does not take one to a Constitutional right to own an Uzi.
Let’s see if we can work with gun owners to establish a functional gun registration/licensure program in California - this would do more for gun safety and the safety of our kids than any outright ban on handguns. Besides any talk of an outright ban plays right into the NRA’s hands and into the nightmares of those gun owners who might otherwise be our allies.
Suzie
Comment by Susan Kidder — April 3, 2006 @ 1:36 pm (http://aldenforassembly.com/blog/?comments_popup=9#comment-53)




Using that "logic", then the First Amendment only protects our right to own feather quill pens and moveable-type presses.

Turn in those computers, typewriters and ballpoint pens, folks! NOW!!!

DrjonesUSA
04-04-2006, 9:16 AM
I for one have to respect the guy for posting the negative responses. I'm shocked as hell that he would allow them to be on his site but you've got to respect people who would allow their detractors to be heard on their own campaign site. Still wouldn't vote for him in a million years but you gotta respect him.


No, you really don't have to respect him.

He's spitting on the Constitution and trying to take your guns away.

461
04-04-2006, 1:00 PM
Just because his views differ from yours doesn't mean he's not worthy of respect. It takes real guts to post opposing viewpoints to your own when running for office and to pay for bandwidth to host those opposing viewpoints shows character that's not seen often in politics today by any party.

Glasshat
04-04-2006, 1:15 PM
LOL!!! If it wasn't for Calguns, there would be no traffic on his site!!!

Red Flag
04-04-2006, 1:24 PM
Just because his views differ from yours doesn't mean he's not worthy of respect. It takes real guts to post opposing viewpoints to your own when running for office and to pay for bandwidth to host those opposing viewpoints shows character that's not seen often in politics today by any party.

Respect is earned....not given. And anyone who wants to take away my handguns will not earn my respect.

461
04-04-2006, 1:27 PM
You guys are starting to sound like fanatics. If you can't respect anybody that doesn't agree with you then you need some help.

DrjonesUSA
04-04-2006, 1:37 PM
You guys are starting to sound like fanatics. If you can't respect anybody that doesn't agree with you then you need some help.


"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

- Barry Goldwater


I'd be more than happy to sit down with this guy and have a calm, rational discussion about the topic.

If he is capable of doing so and has any more intelligence than the cup of coffee sitting on my desk, he will understand and agree with the pro-gun side of this debate.

He would then EARN some of my respect.

If, for any reason he does not understand nor agree with my position and insists on maintaining his current views, then no respect for him whatsoever.

Red Flag
04-04-2006, 1:38 PM
You guys are starting to sound like fanatics. If you can't respect anybody that doesn't agree with you then you need some help.

Respect is based on actions. Why do I have to respect someone that wants to do something I dont think is right?

During my years in the Army, I met plenty of crap NCO's that demanded I respect them and plenty of times I told them I would respect their rank, not them.

Again, respect is earned by actions, not because someone thinks I need to give it to them.

461
04-04-2006, 1:46 PM
You have your opinions and I have mine, we all agree on the firearms issue so I'll not push your buttons for no gain here as it detracts from the solidarity of the community. My viewpoint was simply stated and obviously misinterpreted even after restating it just as simply. Have a nice day.

Mayhem
04-04-2006, 1:59 PM
Lets see lets look at the issues ... safety and loss of life. well here are the stats for 2002.

Leading Causes of Death in the United States

Rank - Cause of Death - Total number of deaths - Percentage of deaths

* Total Number of Deaths - 2,403,351 - 100%
1 - Major Cardiovasular Diseases - 936,923 - 39.0%
2 - Malignant Neoplasms - 553,091 - 23.0%
3 - Chronic Lower Resperitory diseases - 122,009 - 5.1%
4 - Diabetes Mellitus - 69,301 - 2.9%
5 - Influenza and Pneumonia - 65,313 - 2.7%
6 - Alzheimers - 49,558 - 2.1%
7 - Motor Vehicle Accidents - 43,354 - 1.8%
8 - Renal Failure - 3,6471 - 1.5%
9 - Septicemia - 3,1224 - 1.3%
10 - Firearms - 28,663 - 1.2%

NOTE: Firearms Statistics Include Gang incidents, Self Defense Shootings and Criminals Killed by Police

Leading Causes of Accidental Death in the United States

Rank - Cause of Accidental Death - Total Number of Accidental Deaths - percentage of Accidental Deaths

* - Total Number of Accidental Deaths - 97,900 - 100%
1 - Motor Vehicle - 43,354 - 44.3%
2 - Unspecified nontransport accidents - 17,437 - 17.8%
3 - Falls - 13,322 - 13.6%
4 - Poisoning and Noxious Substances - 12,757 - 13.0%
5 - Drowning - 3,842 - 3.9%
6 - Exposure to Smoke, Fire, Flames - 3,377 - 3.4%
7 - Other Land Transport Accidents - 1,492 - 1.5%
8 - Complications of Med/Surg Care - 3,059 - 3.1%
9 - Accidental Discharge of Firearms - 776 - 0.8%

Source http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
Leading Causes of Death in the United States
As compiled from data reported by the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002

Now one thing to keep in mind firearms has a slightly higher percentage and rank in California then the national average which is funny because we have one of the most restrictive states in regards to gun laws and regulations.

Reading John Alden’s "Banning handguns" essay I have come to the conclusion that John Alden does not trust they very citizens he is asking support from. I not only find this disturbing I find it offensive. I think I far more things to worry about then Handguns. For example

1) My government - leaving me in a situation like New Orleans. Not only did Local State and Federal government leave the people of New Orleans stranded. They stripped them of their rights to protect themselves and left them defenseless victims. Every time I turn around I find the government intruding in my life and privacy. And people like John Alden scare me even more by try to grab a few headlines at the cost of my right to protect myself.

2) Illegal immigrants – burden social resources, take jobs away from the working poor, and commit crime. As long as legal immigrants and citizens suffer and die by the actions of illegal immigrants I have a reason to be afraid. To top it off my government wants to compromise with the issue of illegal immigration and does not seem to care about the security of our borders. Which brings me number 3

3) Terrorism. With my government selling by country out from under me to foreign powers, including but not limited to strategic assets such as US ports and the security at those ports, and neglecting the security of our borders we are being left wide open for terrorist organization to walk in and make attacks on US soil with ease. That’s all we need is a few terrorist to cross the border with a SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition). a IAD (Improvised Atomic Device) AKA a dirty nuke, A chemical weapon such as VX nerve agent or a biological weapon such anthrax. Imagine a fanatical terrorist driving around in your city with one of these in the pack of a ford pinto. With countries like Pakastan who are already nuclear capable and Iran trying to become Nuclear capable. How long do we have.

4) H5N1 Avian Influenza (Bird Flu). As of the latestest statistics H5N1 has a 85% to 91% fetality rate in Human infections. Thankfully it’s still limited only to Infection from bird to bird and bird to human. Almost every time this virus mutates it becomes more dangerous with a higher fatality rate in humans. The day H5N1 mutates to a point it can infect humans from humans we have a pandemedic that could make the black plague, spanish flu, small pox and typhus combined look like chicken pox. Up to 60% of the worlds polulation gone in a few years. CDC already predicts the point of entry to such a pandemic into the US will be California.

When people like John Alden can solve these issues and the 9 greater cuases of death then he can talk about gun controll. Untill then he’s just grabbing headlines to push a political agenda.

Mayhem
04-04-2006, 1:59 PM
Lets talk about gun controll.

California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Yet we have one of the highest rates of murder and vilent crime.

John Alden talks of stats and gang memebers. Here is a common misconception of stats. When compairng stats with right to carry state vs more resticive states, the libral media and people like John Aden leave a few things out. Such as the percentage of civilans with firearms, the number of hunters and the number of sportsmen compaired to more restrictive states such as california. They use a fatality rate that includes murder with firearms, justifiable homicide with firearms, firearm accidents and suicides commited with firearms. Since right to carry states already have higher ownership of guns it is logical to expect them to have a higher accident rate. Justifiable homicide and suicide shouldn’t even be considered in a statistic to see if right to cary laws are successful or not. We already know most gun controll is a failure. What we should be looking at in our stats is Murder commited with firearms, Violent crimes commited. And general crime stats per capita in right to cary states vs more restrictive states. This is where you really see the failings in gun controll and the success of right to carry laws. Gang members nearly always obtain firearms illegally so gun controll will not effect them. It’s already easier to obtain an illegal firearm in california then it is legally. Illegal firearms are cheaper, require no background check, have no waiting period, do not have to pass DOJ certification, have no purchase rate limits, have no magazine limits, can be fully automitic, and know no borders. With illegal guns on the streats, black market weapons being smuggled in across are borders and a no questions asked international arms trade it is vertually impossible for total disarmerment. The only people you can disarm is law abiding citizens.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, Federalist No. 46, 1788

Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves." --Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

Well John Alden seems like he was to infringe upon my 2nd amendment right.

Up until 1933 the 2nd amendment meant I could keep and carry just about any gun I wanted to. According to most of the anti-gun crowd for the first 144 years every one was wrong about the constitution. I can understand getting fully automatic machine guns out of the hands of the gangsters, but this is where we starting giving up our right to keep and bear arms, and the anti-gun crowd has been taking ever since. So I’m sorry but I cannot believe John Alden when he says “handguns only ban” … it may start that way but it will not end until the anti-gun crowd has all of us Normal Law abiding citizens disarmed. Give these guys an inch and they take it all.

I use to stick to my guns with no compremise but the way I see things now I need to comprimise. The way I see things is.

1) I’m not gay so I don’t care if homosexuals get the right to marriage or not. If they support my rights to keep and bear arms I’ll support their bid to get their right to get hitched.
2) I’m not a women so I can never have an abortion. I’m going to vote for and support the side that is going to stand up for right to keep and bear arms.
3) I’m not in a labor union … guess what? I’m going to vote for and support that is going to stand up for right to keep and bear arms.
4) I’ve got health care insurance so I don’t care about national health care so guess what? I’m going to vote for and support that is going to stand up for right to keep and bear arms.
5) Social security is weak and probably wount be around when I retire and if it is there wount be much left to it. so guess what? I’m going to vote for and support that is going to stand up for right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately this is way every gun owner is going to have to place his or her support and votes. Otherwise people like John Alden are going to make us nothing better then surfs existing for the state. Almost the entire democratic party is like this now. Look at Diane Feinstein. She is one of those most rabid anti-gun legislators there is on capitol hill. The scary thing is she not only owns a gun but she has a California Concealed Carry Permit, Guess we common people just can’t be trusted can we Diane?


I served in the military as an Infantryman for 8 years. I’ve been in one major conflict … the first gulf war. I took an oath to defend the constitution with my life. Now people like Diane Feinstein and John Alden are telling me the Constitution doesn’t mean what it states in ink….. I want my 8 years back. I wasted my time and I’m ashamed. I’m not ashamed of my service, what I did and where I did it. I’m ashamed for who I did it for, the 58% of voters in San Francisco. The democratic party wants to take my rights away, I want my 8 years back. I wasted my time and they didn’t deserve it.

We as Firearm owners, Hunters, sportsmen and supports of the 2nd amendment need to start standing up for our rights and get politically motivated. We need to start using the same tactics that the anti-gun crowd is using without the lying. There are a lot of people out their that are undecided about the issues. A lot of people that have never had wild duck or venison. A lot of people (even some we know) that have never shot trap, fired a pistol or a riffle. We can get them on our side. Invite them over for a venison dinner. Get them to try shooting and hunting. Teach them gun safety and responsibility. Support youth shooting and hunting groups. Even if you only own a shotgun remember if people like John Alden have their way you will never own a handgun and eventually will never own any gun at all. You will end up a feudal surf serving them. We can turn this all back and stop the anti-gun crowd by showing the undecided people our side and getting them to support us with their votes.

D.N.

bg
04-04-2006, 2:02 PM
I was surprised they posted my comment on there.
I will give him credit for at least having a comment
section. I have to say I did like this one reply..>

Mr. Alden. I want to thank you and support your idea to ban handguns in the State of California. I do not like to see private ownership of handguns, and do not believe citizens should be able to get them, even legally. Your State ban would serve to keep me and my kind safe. Thanks –California Criminals.

Bam. Right on the money.

I agree we can have differing view points and still act civil towards each
other..I would only remind you all of B.Franklin's quote:

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately."

We must if we want to put up any front against
those who have the goal of "extinction" in mind for us.

69Mach1
04-04-2006, 2:25 PM
I was surprised they posted my comment on there.
I will give him credit for at least having a comment
section. I have to say I did like this one reply..>



Bam. Right on the money.

I agree we can have differing view points and still act civil towards each
other..I would only remind you all of B.Franklin's quote:

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately."

We must if we want to put up any front against
those who have the goal of "extinction" in mind for us.


I was wondering when it was going to go up.

Red Flag
04-04-2006, 2:53 PM
, we all agree on the firearms issue so I'll not push your buttons for no gain here as it detracts from the solidarity of the community.

Agreed! *Give's Tim a beer!* Us gun nuts have to stick together :)

Chris

461
04-04-2006, 3:04 PM
I reserve the right to buy the second round. :)

DrjonesUSA
04-04-2006, 3:07 PM
I reserve the right to buy the second round. :)


You sure you want to give beer to a bunch of fanatics?? ;) :p :D

Glasshat
04-04-2006, 3:09 PM
Gun control has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with power. If your guns are taken away the politicians will have all the power and nothing will be safe.

461
04-04-2006, 3:24 PM
I've been known to be fairly fanatical myself when under the influence of fine hops and barley. ;)

Mayhem
04-08-2006, 6:27 AM
I posted the mortality statistics.
My point was we as a society have far more important issues then hand Gun Banning and criminalizing handguns will only hurt California and it’s citizens. Time and time again 2nd amendment supporters have provided facts and hard core proof to support our argument. Yet the anti-gun crowd seem more intent to protect criminals while disarming law abiding citizens leaving them helpless victims.

For you numbers people here are some more facts.

1) Violent crime in the US is at an all time low since 1965.
2) Violent crime committed by minors is at an all time national low since 1973. - I Love to toss this one out to people who claim video games have caused a increase in Violent crime committed by youths.
3) In 2002 their where 30,242 overall firearms death in the U.S. of these 17,108 where suicides. 11,829 by homicide 762 Unintentional (accidental) 300 Legal Intervention and 243 Undermined. Over half of all firearm related deaths are suicides.
4) 2002 only had 26 unintentional (accidental) deaths by firearms for children under the age of 10 nationwide. Only 167 for persons under the age of 20. By comparison 1,625 children under the age of 10 in the US where killed in Unintentional Transportation incidents, 1274 total motor vehicle, 313 as pedestrians, 587 as passengers. 8,441 unintentional transportation deaths for persons under the age of 20, 7,670 over all by motor vehicle, 4,128 as passengers, 752 as pedestrians. 35 children under the age of10 years old where killed on Bicycles in 2002. There where only 142 total firearm deaths of children under the age of 10 in 2002. There where 676 unintentional drowning of children under the age of 10 in 2002, 1158 for persons under the age of 20. What does this prove Cars and Swimming pools separately kill more children then guns do. why don’t we just save more lives and ban cars and swimming pools.
5) When the violent crime rate was nearly at an all time high in the late 80’s and early 90’s we went from 1 Unrestricted state, 8 shall issue states, 26 may issue states and 15 no issue states in 1986 to currently 2 unrestricted states 37 shall issue states 9 may issue states 2 no issue states in 2006. The crime rate has been falling. Most no issue and may issue states typically have more crime per capita then shall issue states. California which is a may issue state and has some of the most restrictive gun control laws and is still above the national average on violent crime.


By all means look if you do not believe me look at the FBI and CDC reports. CDC has stats broken down better and offer very good facts.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_10.pdf

To the best of the data I could collect. Most guns used in crimes are in fact handguns, mostly because of their ability to be concealed. It’s rather hard for a criminal to walk down a street into a 7-11, and rob it without being noticed when a criminal is caring a scoped Remington 700 hunting rifle (but it has happened). However most criminals obtain their firearms illegally specially felons who cannot obtain a firearm legally (it’s a crime if they try),. These illegal means are typically Straw purchases (having some one who can legally obtain a firearm purchase it for the criminal), black market, and theft from people who legally obtained and own a gun.

California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
1) we have background checks
2) we have a 10 day wait period for all firearm purchases.
3) We have a limit of only one handgun purchase per person per month.
4) We require a certified safety course for all handgun purchases. Which has changed over the years from The Basic Firearm Safety Certificate a once in a lifetime certificate with exemptions for hunter safety certificate, active retired and honorably discharged veterans, persons with a CCW and Open Carry permits. Law enforcement. And PC832 firearms certificates. To the new Hand Gun Safety course. Now only active military, CCW/Open Carry permits, Law enforcement and PC 832 certificates are exempt from the safety cert. and the new certificate is only good for 5 years.
5) All guns must go threw and be certified by the California Department of justice otherwise they are Illegal to purchase.
6) All magazines for all semi auto loading firearms is limited to 10 rounds.
7) Complete ban on all “assault weapons”
8) Complete ban on all weapons chambered for .50 bmg (even single shot and bolt actions) – to date there is only 1 known and 1 possible incident of a violent crime being commited using a .50 bmg and there is no known or proven Death by a .50 bmg in California or the US.
9) All new handguns must be registered at time of purchase, all grandfathered assault weapons and .50 bmg rifles must be registered by set dates.
10) Possession of an unregistered assault weapon, or 50 bmg is a felony (Prison time) Conversion of a firearm to an alleged “assault weapon” is a felony (Prison time)
11) California requires that all persons purchasing a firearm either have a DOJ approved gun safe or purchase a DOJ approved firearm trigger lock.
12) Transportation of all firearms must be in a locked container with ammo stored in a separate location of the vehicle. If you have a grandfathered banned weapon you need to have a copy of your registration.
13) You cannot bring into California banned weapon or magazine even if you legally purchased it outside of California before moving to California. This boost the black market considering none of the states bordering California have any such bans. Not to mention the California/Mexico National border which typically has illegal immigrants, terrorist, illegal drugs and illegal weapons (Including fully automatic weapons) coming across it into California.
14) It is a crime for a person not allowed to posses or purchase a firearm, to walk into a gun store and attempt to purchase a gun. (person not allowed is typically Felons, suspected terrorist, persons with misdemeanor drug or domestic violence. As well as people deemed a mentally unstable or have a restraining order (Including an Emergency Protection order) against them (justified or not). Keep in mind if you got the money you can darn near get a restraining order against anyone.

Even with all this California is the 7th highest state for Robbery, 7th highest for vehicle theft, 9th highest occurrence for Violent crimes. 9th highest for aggravated assault, 16th highest rate for Murder. California did do better in Rape burglary and larceny.

Mayhem
04-08-2006, 6:29 AM
Stopping a suicide is difficult. If a person really wants to die there’s not much you can do to stop them. Lets take me for example even if you take away everything you deemed dangerous in my house away from me. All I need to do is stop taking my diabetic meds and take a trip to the candy store. Not much you can do about that.

”1. The constitutional issue: The constitution says nothing about handguns. This, at least, is clear. We are not proposing to ban all firearms. We have singled out handguns specifically because they are so dangerous and their use poses tremendous risks. This ban does not stop anyone from keeping or bearing arms.”

No the Constitution states “ARMS” Not rifles, Not assault weapons, Not handguns, Not black powder or Smokeless. To be completely honest a person can use the lack of specification in the second amendment to ban all guns but black powder rifles, one can even say it only keeps the State from cutting off or binding your arms (the ones hanging from your shoulders that connect your body to your hands).

”2. The protection issue: It seems that many people feel they would be defenseless without handguns. I do not own a gun, do not carry one when I walk down the street, do not have one in my home. I’m ok with that. 75% of Americans are ok with that. Most of the world is ok with that. Still, some people are genuinely fearful for their safety, and there are many measures they can take to protect themselves: Carry pepper spray or mace on your person. If a small child finds your pepper spray and accidentally sprays himself with it, he will be unhappy, but still alive. We do have the right to be safe and secure. Handguns aren’t necessary for this purpose”

Obviously you do not own a gun. I doubt you have ever owned one or fired one.. You live in Marin County “the Beverly hills” of northern California. The houses in the slums go for more then a million in Marin. The only thing that scares me in Marin are the mountain lions trying to eat me and the liberals trying to take my rights away. 75% still leaves 25% how many of the 25% actually can carry. I have had to carry open often. I have not felt I needed to carry concealed very often mostly while fishing and California law allows that without a permit. Pepper spray is only effective against unarmed sober attacker its more effective then CN or CS tear gas but its not a magic fix. You try fending off a guy with a knife, baseball bat, or gun with pepper spray specially if the suspect is on a controlled substance. I do have the right to be safe and secure. Who is going to provide my safety and security? You, The national guard, PD or SO? Look at Washington DC their doing a band up job their protecting their law abiding citizens with a firearms ban in place (that’s sarcasm BTW). It’s been proven time and time again Law enforcement and the government is responsible or liable for guaranteeing a persons safety as a private citizen, that became case law when a couple of rape victims who tried to sue because PD drove out to their place and left while they where being raped.

”3. The crime issue: Most of the talk has centered around criminals. Would criminals honor a handgun ban? Probably not, but that’s exactly the point. Police could stop those criminals simply for possessing the gun before anyone is hurt”

When did Law enforcement get issued ESP or Magical handgun detectors? Handguns by their very nature are extremely concealable. Law enforcement has a hard enough time protecting themselves from armed criminals. Most criminals right now by their very nature are breaking the law by just possessing a firearm let alone a handgun. I’m not sure where people get the idea that a few laws are going to stop criminals from committing more serious crimes. Its not like a your typical criminal who is planning a major crime with a firearm really objects to racking up a few more lesser charges. I don’t think giving them Clemency helps much either.

”But it is just as important to understand that many deaths occur with the handguns of responsible gun owners. Yes, handguns are disproportionately used in gang-related homicides, etc. but far more actual handgun deaths occur as a result of suicide, accidental shooting and murder with legal, licensed guns. This has little to do with whether someone is a responsible gun-owner, as most are. It has to do with something about handguns themselves. When they are around, people die. We’ve seen in these comments “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” True: it takes a person to pull the trigger. But handguns actually cause MORE people to pull the trigger and kill themselves or someone else–accidentally or on purpose–than other guns do. That’s what makes HANDGUNS dangerous, not necessarily the people who use them. Criminals with handguns are obviously dangerous, but so are handguns in and of themselves”

Suicide is pretty much irrelevant. If people want to die there is not much you can do to stop them. Since you want to stop them by removing the means I suggest dismantling the golden gate bridge to. However maybe if you actually looked at what causes a person to commit suicide, not how they commit suicide, you might actually help someone. However life has some general rules 1 - every living thing dies 2 – every living thing lives at the expense of another living thing (for you anti hunters out their). 3 – Nothing last forever. In all honesty I think people have the right to end their life specially if their looking at a painful and slowly fatal disease or disorder. It’s all about quality not quantity. Most Liberal democrats have no problem with a women’s right to an abortion. But you have a problem with someone taking their own life. I think people have complete rights to their bodies. If a women wants to have an abortion that’s her right. If an elderly person dying of pancreatic cancer wants to end their suffering by taking their own life they should have that right to. Again with accidents more people die in car crashes see the stats above in this post and my previous one.

I have never heard of a gun killing any one with out some one touching it. Handgun or any gun for that matter is not dangerous, you have to add person to make it dangerous. A loaded, chambered gun with the safety off its absolutely harmless until some one touches it.

Handgun are usually more popular and also far easier for a suicidal person to it to their head then rifles or shotguns. Most novices purchase a handgun as their first if not only firearm. In all honesty there are no excuses for accidental shooting. Basic common since, responsibility and a good safety course is all you really need. Some basic gun safety for any gun is.

1) Treat every firearm as if it is loaded. Unloaded firearms cause more accidents then loaded firearms.
2) Point the barrel in a safe direction.
3) Keep your safety on and your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until you are ready to fire.
4) never hand someone a loaded firearm if some one hands you firearm refer to rule #1

Some other words of safety advise.

Don’t shoot at something until you have as your target. In other words if your hunting deer make sure it’s a deer your about shoot at and not another hunter. If you’re protecting yourself make sure your not about to shoot at your spouse and/or kids.

Be aware of what is behind your target.

In a self defense situation make sure you are actually in fear for your life. It’s not that I think a bugler’s life is worth more then your stereo, its that you stereo isn’t worth the law suite your probably going to get from the burglar’s family. Not to mention all the legal problems, possible prosecution, and the possible permanent loss of your firearm if not the temporary loss (usually 2 weeks). Keep in mind the weapon your using to defend your self with, it’s power, bullet penetration and bullet travel. Center fire rifles are to dangerous for self defense in the home due to over penetration. A typical 30-06 can go threw your attacker threw a lot of sheet rock and possibly into your spouse, child and or your neighbors house. Shotguns aren’t much better with anything bigger then the lightest bird/target loads. With a shotgun you also have to keep in mind with shot shells your not firing one projectile your firing a lot of projectiles at once in a narrow but conical pattern that’s spreads as it travels. Buck shot is like firing 6 to 12 .38 specials bullets at once. Shotgun slugs pretty much the same as rifle rounds just bigger and heavier and they don’t travel quite as far. I don’t even recommend hallow points in a handgun for home defense and absolutely do not use Full Metal Jacket or Round nose bullets. The best thing for self defense is a revolver in something like .38 or 357 (which typically can also fire .38) loaded with frangible rounds like Glaser Safety Slugs. They do not penetrate more then 2 layers of sheet rock.

Mayhem
04-08-2006, 6:30 AM
Keep your guns and ammo stored securely and safely if not separately. Get a lock box or a gun safe. If you absolutely need to sleep with a handgun for self defense best bet 1 – put a lock on your bedroom door and keep it locked wither your in it or not. Get a night stand with a locking drawer or put a lock on the drawer. Lock the gun in a case (that fits your drawer) in the locked nightstand drawer. In your locked bedroom when your not present. When you go to bed keep your bedroom door locked unlock the case and drawer if you feel the need to have your gun always at the available. Other things you can invest in are high tension action locks and theirs a new safe you can put in your wall that opens with an electronic fingerprint reader.

If you have children and you are going to have firearms in your home. Keep your firearms out of their reach. Tech your children the appropriate gun safety level for their age.

If people fallow these basic rules and guidelines to firearms, I guarantee accidental firearms death will be reduced to near 0. Problem is there is not a decent training course or class that teaches this. Most of what we have is either over complicated or doesn’t cover enough. Firearms as with motor vehicles and parenting require that People need to be responsible.

”4. The lifestyle issue: Many folks are avid shooters, and want to be able to shoot with handguns. These folks have done nothing wrong and we are not trying to attack them. Yes, the handgun ban would prohibit target shooting with certain kinds of guns, but not with rifles or shotguns. However, there is a COST to having handguns in our society that EVERYONE pays. This is a cost in dollars and in lives. Most people do not own or use handguns, but everybody pays for them. This is a societal issue. Should one group of people be permitted to do something if it negatively affects a much larger group of people (i.e. everybody)? Which is greater, the cost to all of society of having handguns, or the enjoyment of those who use them?”

What about law enforcement, and armed security. What about auto accidents and swimming pools which cost more lives and more taxpayers money. I pay taxes and I vote. The cost to all society is minimal. Look at all the states are now “shall issue” states with Concealed weapons permits. Concealed weapons as in handguns. Seems most of America isn’t with you on this one, hopefully neither will most of California. Actually more people own handguns then any other type of firearm from what you claim. The so called one group doesn’t negative effect a larger group, Responsible legal law abiding hand gun owners do not negative impact a larger group by their owning a handgun or their sport. It’s the criminal and illegal gun owner that negatively impact society as a whole. What is greater is the cost of my life or my families lives because you disarmed me. Why don’t you try turning victims into victors rather then keeping them victims.

I have served my country for 8 years as an infantryman, I went to the first gulf war. I’ve taken the PC 832 and graduated from the reserve police academy. I’ve worked as an armed security officer. I put myself further threw school to become an IT professional. I’m a Mason. I hunt. I participate in shooting sports. I’ve been around and handled firearms since I was child. That’s over 30 years of firearms experience. I have experience with handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, sniper rifles, semi-automatic “assault rifles”. Burst fire and fully automatic assault riffles” machine pistols, sub machine guns, machineguns., crew serviced machine guns. and Anti tank rockets and missiles. In all that time I have never committed a crime let alone one with a firearm, never had an accidental discharge of a weapon let alone an accidental shooting. Not a single one of my firearms has been accidentaly discharged by someone else.. I have an alarm system, a gun safe, gun locks, locking gun cases, a locking night stand drawer a locking bedroom door. My kids have been taught firearms safety. I think I’ve earned the right to own handguns. If you don’t feel you have the right and I wouldn’t blame you. That’s your choice. Yet you want to make your entrance into state level politics on a subject that your not well informed on and have no experience with.

”5. My last thought has to do with priorities. Someone posted on our blog some statistics about deaths in the U.S. Gun deaths are dwarfed by medical deaths, no doubt. But gun deaths are something we can realistically reduce. Also, there are many broader ways to reduce crime than leaving handguns lying around. When we increase education funding so that more people can get a good education and decent jobs, there will be less crime. When we fund drug rehabilitation programs, there will be less crime. We need to reduce poverty, and when we do so, there will be less crime.”
Gun deaths are dwarfed by automotive accidents as well. Medical deaths ARE something we can realistically reduce. Yes there are a lot of ways to reduce crime, becoming a “right to carry state”. Securing our borders. Enforcing immigration laws. Proper funding for law enforcement. Stiffer penalties for violent criminals. Not giving murderers clemency. Stopping the illegal drug trade. Stopping the manufacture, and cultivation, of illegal drugs on Public lands. Reduce the glorification of violence in society. Educate teens on Responsible parenting. With proper funding for firearms safety education we can reduce accidental firearms deaths as well.
If the anti-gun crowd and organizations like VPC and HCI put the same resources and passion into the real issues they would actually save a lot of lives and improve the quality of life for the Law abiding citizen.
Band aid feel good politics on a subject that no one in the anti-gun crowd is qualified to handle only leads to the further victimization of the innocent and creates a wider gap between the “We the people” and our representatives who don’t represent anyone or anything but their own agenda.
D.N.

461
04-08-2006, 10:37 AM
I can't believe the moron actually responded with the drivel he believes. After all the negative responses with facts and mainly intelligent views he has the nerve to tell people he knows best. He clearly has no concept of representing the people and feels it's the job of legislators to decide for us what is best. I'm going to follow this election and support his opposition in any way I can.

icormba
04-08-2006, 3:26 PM
Send this to the guy's blog...
Suzanna Hupp... A Soccer MOM who has had to live with Gun Violence!

as seen in this Penn & Teller video (posted earlier)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5001380249576962921&q=bull%3F%3F%3F%3F&pl=true

"In 1991, after leaving her gun in her car in order to comply with the law, Suzanna watched helplessly as both her parents, along with 21 others were gunned down (KILLED) in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. As a survivor of this tragedy, her impassioned calls for the right of citizens to self-defense have thrust her into the national debate on the right to keep and bear arms. Since the Killeen massacre, she has testified numerous times across the country for the restoration of the Second Amendment."

http://www.suzannahupp.com/

linuxgunner
04-08-2006, 3:37 PM
How about just start with banning handguns among Democrat assemblymen? Maybe just got Don Perata to put an end to his gun-toting habits?

koiloco
04-10-2006, 10:41 PM
where I came from , or should I say where I ran from - you could not even have a bb gun.

As a law abiding US citizen, It is just outrageous to see how our rights are taken away slowly and bit by bit not because of what we do, but because of what these criminals and politicians (not much better than criminals in many ways) are doing.

It's just sad.

I am no way a gun nut yet. Just 10 rifles and 0 handgun.
But just the thought of having the option and my rights taken away makes me sick and of course wanting to go out and buy a sh*t load of handgun :mad:

shopkeep
04-10-2006, 10:46 PM
I am no way a gun nut yet. Just 10 rifles and 0 handgun.
But just the thought of having the option and my rights taken away makes me sick and of course wanting to go out and buy a sh*t load of handgun :mad:

Eventually the bans will drive you insane that way. The bans encourage hording behavior because if you don't horde you'll be punished. It's the driving motivation behind how 30,000 AR-15 recievers came into this state in just 5 months! Heck there's probably about 50,000 by now.

otalps
04-10-2006, 11:12 PM
I am no way a gun nut yet. Just 10 rifles and 0 handgun

man, I have 2 rifles a shotgun and 2 handguns and my girlfriend and a few friends still call me a gun nut. I don't think I am, at least not yet but just sayin...

That guy might have guts or whatever to put up comments by people that disagree with him but that is definitely not worthy of respect, at least not from me. Feinstein holds the postition of United States Senator, a postition worthy of respect but what has that c***t ever done to earn any respect? People working to take away a God given right deserve nor earn any respect...

ldivinag
04-11-2006, 12:58 AM
Using that "logic", then the First Amendment only protects our right to own feather quill pens and moveable-type presses.

Turn in those computers, typewriters and ballpoint pens, folks! NOW!!!


but when they throw in "but you're not part of a militia..."

i say, you're not working for a newspaper...

Pappy91W
04-11-2006, 1:22 AM
This ASSHAT is NO surprise to me. He's using the standard democrat FEAR TACTIC, if you read his essay, he's saying "VOTE FOR ME OR YOU'LL DIE", he's offering up a boogieman and a "solution" for the boogieman and he's touting himself as the great white hope, the champion against the evil gun that lay in wait to get you. This is NOT a new tactic in California, sadly, it is one that works. The libs WILL make sure this meatwhistle gets elected. Don't be surprise if in 20 years, this trout sniffer becomes Governor.

I went to his site, he OPENLY hates replublicans, he's talking tough on challenging Arnie and retaking California from the republicans. The typical stuff, he's not said anything new, he's just the next living bowel movement to say it. Fortunately, MORE and more republicans vote these days, so, as long as we ALL remember what this clown had to say and we tell others about it, there's the fair shake he can be defeated from his run for the assembly and ruin his political future.

DrjonesUSA
04-11-2006, 10:46 AM
but when they throw in "but you're not part of a militia..."




1) See US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311:

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311


The tired argument about the National Guard is also invalid:

The National Guard was created in 1903 by the Dick Act, which reorganized state militias into National Guard units. The Act standardized the equipment and training and poured massive amounts of federal funding into these units. The National Guard was meant to assist states in times of local emergencies like floods, earthquakes and other disasters, and to protect the country as a whole in time of federal emergencies.

Source: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2887



i say, you're not working for a newspaper...


The First Amendment makes zero reference to whom specifically it applies, because it applies to each and every single American Citizen. To argue otherwise is the definition of absurdity.

The purpose for the existance of the Bill Of Rights is that some (most?) of the Founding Fathers felt that the new Constitution needed to be more explicit in guaranteeing and protecting certain rights OF THE PEOPLE.

bbq_ribs
04-11-2006, 11:16 AM
I love how he brought up CHILDREN.

The FBI & CDC's numbers have proven year after year that more kids die in car accidents, falls, and from poisoning.

They're just bring up "teh children! oh noes!!11!" as a scare tactic.

DrjonesUSA
04-11-2006, 12:01 PM
.................

DrjonesUSA
04-11-2006, 12:21 PM
Does anyone have any idea how that race is shaping up?

Who is his competition, what do his poll figures look like? Etc, etc.

spitkiss
04-11-2006, 3:28 PM
I couldn't help myself. His logo should be:

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j302/beeris/badroots_horiz.jpg

I added a long thought out (and civil) comment and it never got approved :(