"Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL2008032 1a.html

Read it and weep, lefties. The dastardly Roe v. Wade is toast! Hallelujah on this Good Friday.

Herb

Herb, you really are desperate. How about that bet I made you, but you were afraid to take?

It's the left who is desperate. 1 in 5 democrats aren't loyal enough to stay with their own party!

Party on, Radioblogman.

Herb

I agree its early, but when you factor in that McCain already has an almost 10 pint lead over either of his possible opponents, and figures to gain 5 to 10 percent from whichever doesn't get the nomination, its not looking too good for the Demos.

Still a lot of time though.

The only reason this is even on the map is that McCain happens to be enjoying a nice break from being the center of attention.

There are also a lot of GOP voters wanting to vote for Obama, and a lot of youth voters looking for a new start and they see Obama doing that and are likely to vote accordingly.

This is a GOP warm fuzzy, nothing more.

Hell, the majority of people can't differentiate McCain from Bush very well. And where they can, it's not a significant change.

Change is the theme this time around. McCain = Bushes third term. End of story.

Should we go into the archives and pull out Herb's predictions for 2006?

Off-year elections typically go against the party in power.

Nice try.

Herb

When it comes time to choose between a continuation of Bush administration policies versus the Democrat, Democrats will come home. Mark my words. McCain will lose in a historic landslide.

Your right the Democrats will come home, to the Republican party. All the Reagon Democrats will jump at the chance to vote for McCain.

Need another drink? Maybe a hit?

Coffee maybe to wake all the way up?

OK, Herb and Nwokie, here's my deal:

If McCain wins, I go to Pioneer Courthouse Square at lunch time with a sign saying Herb and Nwokie ROCK!

But when Obama is elected, you two go there with a sign saying "We were wrong!"

I'll join you!

C'mon guys, how about it?

And Herb, you will donate $50 to Planned Parenthood if Obama wins and I will donate $50 to Oregon Right to Life if McCain wins.

Make sure Andrew is there taking pictures.

OK, guys, put up or shut up.

Planned Parenthood will NEVER get my money.

Herb

Not so sure of yourself eh?

Herb, if you are so damn sure McCain is going to win, what do you have to lose.

Oh, I forgot, you learned to be a blowhard from Bush.

Herb knows deep down he'll lose. Give him a tad bit of credit for being smart enough to not agree to a loser's bet.

Actually, more Republicans have defected their party than the reverse. Of course, I don't expect you (Herb) to actually research something beyond a single headline.

"Republicans have been casting ballots in Democratic primaries. Evidence of this can be seen in two states with open primary laws that held their presidential primaries in February: Virginia and Wisconsin.

Based on the overall turnout in the Democratic and Republican primaries in these states and estimates from the exit polls of the size of the crossover vote in each party's primary, we can calculate that about 16 percent of Republican voters in Virginia and 25 percent of Republican voters in Wisconsin cast their ballots in the Democratic primary. In contrast, only 2 percent of Democratic voters in Virginia and 3 percent of Democratic voters in Wisconsin cast their ballots in the Republican primary.

Both Virginia and Wisconsin are likely to be battleground states in the November election. The fact that one seventh of Republican voters in Virginia and one fourth of Republican voters in Wisconsin chose to participate in the Democratic primary should be a clear warning signal to the McCain campaign, especially if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee."

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=AIA2008030601

Also, Roe v Wade will stand. The next judge(s) will be appointed by a liberal Democrat, Barack Obama. Get used to it.

Heh...

Well, I'll honor the court house bit, if we can get that far. No harm there really. Good fun.

So, that's not really all that strong of an endorsment is it Herb? I would do the $50, but for that I'm not in a position to wager $50 period. Wish I was actually, because I so totally would do that too.

Hey, here's an example of the MANY McCain matters that are gonna come up, once he gets a little more competitive love:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id= 1003728364

Now, contrast that with this Obama crap we talked about earlier. McCain was here in the now, courting this guy for votes --and accepting his accolades!

McCain will do anything --well, most anything for the winning votes. He's a great Ends Justify the Means kind of guy. McCain = Bush third term.

OK, Herb, I withdraw my bet, as I do not want to do anything to stop you and Nwokie from keeping the discussion alive. It is too much fun watching you two desperately grasping straws for McCain.

Of course the Republicans have been casting ballots for demos in open primaries, thats to make sure the weaker demo gets the nomination. This whole thing has been planned by the grand wizard, karl Rove.

Nice try, Nwokie. Herb cited a very recent poll. I was referencing two primaries from February, before McCain was the assumed nominee.

Right, it's all part of the master plan from Rove to get a Democrat elected. Hey - you gotta hand it to him - it's working. I suspect he started this plan years ago when he saw Bush at the helm.

I just conducted a survery. 1 out of 2 Republicans will be unhappy with the general election results. But hey - that leaves 1 out of two that will be happy.

Half full.

There is no way a registered Democrat will vote for someone who will only be a Bush clone as far as the war is concerned. It is much more likely Republicans will leave the McCain camp in opposition to the war.

It is definitely going to be President Obama.

You need to factor into your thinking that most of the Bush haters are die hard liberals to start with, and they're hating Bush just to go along with the crowd. They don't have much actual effect on the election.

What is a big deal is that 20% group of moderates who can swing either way in an election.

You are totally ignoring southern, mountain and midwestern democrats that have been voting republican ever since Nixon.

There are almost no Bush haters.

There are about 70 percent of us not approving of his policy.

McCain is essentially positioning himself as the guy to continue that policy.

That 20 percent moderate crowd, this year, is:

-significantly larger

-not inclusive of the potentially larger youth vote.

The dynamics are different this year Deane. They are different, largely because of just how badly the GOP has hosed it up.

"You are totally ignoring southern, mountain and midwestern democrats that have been voting republican ever since Nixon."

Nwokie, let this Southerner educate you. Before the Nixon election, you could count the number of Republicans in each state on one hand. Then, because of the civil rights movement, the conservative Democrats became Republicans, which helped put Nixon in office.

A lot of those former Democrats are going to vote for Obama because they are tired of Bush's laws. You've got to remember, southerners believe strongly in individual freedoms and state rights. We don't cotton to Bush taking all of that away from us.

What laws are those? What did he take away? I believe his appointments to the Supreme Court just took a big step toward the right to bear arms.

And his supreme court appointees have at began to enable some restrictions for abortions.

The South and West are teh areas where President Bush still has significant support.

The only people who still support Bush are blooming idiots.

That explains the flowers in the hair of some here today

"A lot of those former Democrats are going to vote for Obama because they are tired of Bush's laws."

Oh really? Breathtakingly incorrect.

Plenty of former democrats will NOT vote for Mr. Obama precisely BECAUSE they SUPPORT Mr. Bush's laws, like that pesky 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms.

Liberals have been very quiet about the 2nd Amendment this election because they know their view is an extremely unpopular one among white male voters, and that includes many democrats and independents. After getting their noses bloodied repeatedly on the gun issue, the left has decided to remain silent, rather than push their gun-grabbing agendae, like that in DC.

Tired of Bush's laws? Hardly. If it weren't for Mr. Bush, the left would have ran roughshod over our right to self-defense. I like the police a lot, but they can't be everywhere.

More guns, less crime.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Herb

Ok, so let's be brutal about it.

Obama isn't going to just mandate no guns. Let's start there.

A Bush third term, or the suggesting that being liberal means no guns?

That's what people are faced with Herb.

Being liberal means banning guns from the average law-abiding citizen. DC is finding out how unpopular, and how ineffective that stance is. It is the way of the tyrant. The first thing Hitler did was take guns away from the citizenry.

A huge number of independents and democrats will vote against the gun-grabbing left.

The NRA is exceedingly well-organised and well-funded. The left will fail miserably on this key constitutional issue.

Herb

No it doesn't!

That's actually a matter of public debate. Fully half the people I know, that would self-identify as liberal, support gun ownership.

I support it, and have few worries about what's going to happen about it with Obama as President.

That's where the end game comes into play. This time it's not about one or two "nothing else matters" issues!

Feeding my family matters, keeping them healthy matters, prospects for employment matter, and it goes on and on.

The NRA can go and apply that funding to activist movements, lobby congress, etc... that's what they are supposed to do and it will work out just fine.

Remember too, the GOP confiscated guns in Katrina --->right when people needed them! If there was a time to have to deal with gun ownership, that was one of those times.

These divisive things are not the focus! As Obama has said:

NOT THIS TIME.

Besides, there are lots of ways to deal with crime. If we are doing better at producing living wage jobs, there will be less crime. If we are not hammering on core civil liberties, there will be less crime. If people are educated, there will be less crime.

It's a false choice, that's why it does not matter this time. Nobody wants to think about false choices.

The gun bit, abortion, flag burning, etc... are just as false as that damn petri dish thing is.

A third Bush term is not going to do anybody any favors economically. In fact, we run the very real risk of a full on collapse of the dollar and that's gonna drive crime through the roof!

(in which case, that gun might not be a bad idea, if that's how some people want to go with it)

So, not this time Herb.

You are gonna have to show how McCain is going to be a better overall President that Obama is going to be, not define some bull shit issue as being the "nothing else matters" one.

"Being liberal means banning guns from the average law-abiding citizen."

I am Liberal.
I support gun ownership.

So your statement is patently false.

"Remember too, the GOP confiscated guns in Katrina"

Hmmm. I seem to remember it was the New Orleans mayor who authorized the confiscations. He is a Democrat.

Guns are a drain on society, as they provide more negatives than positives. That's the bottom line for me. While I don't support banning them or the private ownership of them, I do support stricter rules and regulations, including licensing and a higher bar to meet for owning them.

Then change the constitution, if you can get enough national support to do it.

The constitution doesn't say what we would like it to say, it is what it is.

The Constitution does not allow unfettered access to arms. And, if you're going to fall back on the Constitution, honor the whole thing, don't just cherry pick.

"Being liberal means banning guns from the average law-abiding citizen."

It's true.

Read what I read.

Those who ban guns aren't law abiding citizens. The ones who ban are socialist legislators also known as democrats.

...banning guns FROM the average law-abiding citizen...

And if you guys don't think the NRA isn't going to line up big time to defeat your gun-grabbing candidate, think again. Plenty of democrats and independents align together on this one, and not only in the south. Make gun owners mad and you lose. Mr. Gore learned his lesson.

Herb

Guns are VERY important to you.

Ok, so show me where Obama is gonna go take the guns.

And again the end game. 100 years of Iraq, meaning you are highly likely not able to buy bullets, or the remote chance you might see some legislation on guns.

1 in 5 Democrats will not vote McCain.

I have seen the future - I do not age well - but I live a long time.

The constitution does allow unfettered access to guns, "the Peoples right to keep and bear arms shall be unabriged".

There!

Done, see?

No worries. ---> At least not Third Bush Term type worries.

And that's exactly what this is all about. Remember that.

"Guns are VERY important to you."

The pro-life cause is the single most important cause for me.

Guns are indeed important, though and our founders agreed. The 2nd Amendment is second ONLY to free speech! The commie Mao said that power comes from the barrel of a gun. And that's what commies love to do...enslave their people and make them powerless.

Grabbing guns is essentially taking away the right to self-defense. Police can't be everywhere and crooks are less likely to attack you if they think you might be armed.

Liberals have a long history of grabbing guns and doing what they did in DC. Go after the criminals and let law-abiding citizens defend themselves. How often have you heard of a concealed carry permit holder, who is fingerprinted and given a background check, commiting felonious acts? It's so rare because permit holders are far more likely to be good law-abiding citizens.

Herb

You know that Montana is considered one of the safest states in the nation. You know why? ( At least, do you want to guess as to what the pollsters attrubuted the low crime rate to? )

Belief in God and expecting accountability in the hereafter helps people behave.

That is, unless it's a leftist, phoney poll.

Herb

Oh - it was guns. I guess they are wrong then.

I've yet to see any candidate say they are going to take away your guns. So give us a break with your hand wringing.

SHHHH! Don't spoil the surprise, Vitalogy. It's a SECRET!

GUNS
GAYS
GOD

Herb's constant hand wringing is getting downright annoying.

Are you new 'round here, son?

(hehehe)

"expecting accountability in the hereafter helps people behave."


What a SAD outlook on life. Behavior patterns set because the Man's watching. Ugh!

What's wrong with just being civilized for the sake of treating someone as you'd want them to treat you. No SCARY God required.

On this planet, God's own people are making a mockery of Him. Why can't these folks just keep their beliefs between themselves and God, and let God do the god business by himself?

Here's Obamas view on guns
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

He wants to ban all semi automatic weapons. That would include just about all modern pistols and rifles, and shotfuns.

That would leave revolvers, and bolt action rifles and shotguns, and pump type weapons.

"shotfuns"?

Sounds like they're marketing them to kids now.

I like his statement, "We must keep guns out of the inner city", isn't that a racist remark, seems he doesn't think blacks should be allowed to own guns.

So you are taking the term "inner city" and equating that with black.

Who's the racist?

I'm fine with banning all semi automatic weapons as they are not necessary. And as far as the inner city goes, I'd say that guns become more of a danger where there are higher densities of population.

"I'm fine with banning all semi automatic weapons as they are not necessary."

Yeah, I'm sure you are fine with banning any kind of gun you don't happen to like. And after you grab semi-automatics, you'll be after everything else.

Unless one happens to live in town next to a police station that's actually manned 24/7, the police won't always be nearby to save you. So you've essentially doomed many citizens to being victims.

I've read where many women prefer a handgun for self-defense because they're easy to pack in a purse or handbag. In case you didn't know, shotguns and rifles are not so easy to carry around.

You want to doom everyone to having no protection against violent criminals who rape and kill? No thanks. To protect the rest of us from your kind of thinking, thankfully we have a 2nd Amendment.

And since you want to ban handguns, good luck packing a shotgun next time you travel into town.

Herb

Who here would have the intestinal fortitude to actually shoot someone?

If someone is breaking down my door, my life is threatened and they will not stop.

Herb

I absolutely can do it.

Oh, I can do it. I spent 25 years of my life, where that was part of my job description.

I have read some studies, that show that a significant number of trained soldiers, can not actually shoot someone. They fire into the air, the ground or just don't fire.

"If someone is breaking down my door, my life is threatened and they will not stop."

And how likely is that, honestly? What's more likely is:

•a criminal breaks into your home while you are gone and steals your gun.

•a you or a family member accidentally discharges the gun while handling it.

•you or a family member brandishes the gun in anger against someone you know.

•you use your gun against someone mistakenly perceived to be a threat.

Herb, you are a victim of media-driven fear of violence. Not to say that your scenario isn't possible, but it is much, much less likely to occur than you have been lead to believe.

It's because of armed, law abiding citizens that you benefit from crooks not knowing exactly which homes are armed.

Herb

Spot on Ed.

Had the criminal scenario happen. Not my gun --as I currently don't own one, but parents gun.

In my extended family, the accident scenario has happened a few times. (morons --> we don't do the reunion anymore)

The anger bit has occurred twice, with me facing down the angry person, talking the loaded and safety off gun out of their hands both times. (if you have ever done that, it's a personal life test of the highest order --not cool.)

Have no experience with the mistaken threat bit, but know plenty who have.

I know absolutely nobody that has experienced, or who knows anybody who has experienced the breaking down the door scenario.

If it's not at the bottom of the list, it is at least WAY down there.

To sum up, in my life, I've had to deal with guns. Don't like it, don't really fear it --as in I don't walk around dreaming up scenarios. In all cases, some more aggressive gun control would have had a serious shot at reducing the number of confrontations I've personally had.

I don't own one these days, for that exact reason. It's not necessary, and like I said, I would absolutely shoot somebody, if it was warranted. It's not a matter of personal mettle. Non issue and everybody that knows me knows that.

It's all about escalation prevention. Escalation of situations where guns are involved kills people dead. The presence of the gun almost never adds any value.

Currently 40. There has been absolutely nothing in my life that required a gun to resolve. And I've not had a pretty life, for the most part either.

Guns have been good for rural protection. Would easily own one again, given that scenario. And it's animals, not people, that are at issue there.

Guns have been good sport. Shooting for entertainment is a great activity that does no harm, provided everybody has a level head about it. I don't shoot with stupid people ---ever.

Guns have been good for hunting. Again, that's both a personal choice and more typically a rural thing. Support it fully and completely.

Having guns around the house, because of fear, is absolutely the wrong reason to have guns. The same goes for power reasons. Lots of people want the upper hand, not the higher ground. There is a huge difference and failure to grok that lies at the root of a lot of gun deaths.

Having them because they suit some purpose is a good reason, given said purpose does not have it's basis in fear.

The majority of people, I've met, who think they need guns, just don't. And that's very worrysome to me.

Herb, no it isn't.

The simple truth behind exactly why you don't have people breaking down doors comes down to simple opportunity. Crime happens where it's most likely to not escalate.

If a criminal is armed, they don't want to use that gun at all. They have it out of fear --and rightfully so, as they are doing others harm big time.

Read what I wrote above. It's the wrong reason to own one.

Think: Why would a criminal break into an occupied house when it is so easy to determine if it is unoccupied? The vast majority break in to steal stuff (like your gun). Only the stupid ones break into occupied homes (and granted, there are quite a few stupid criminals out there).

When you weigh the remote chance of your scenario against the more likely chance of one of my scenarios, I would prefer to keep my household gun-free. I do have a loaded baseball bat under my bed, though.

There will never be laws in America banning all guns, so as long as the law allows the ownership of guns that can kill, then criminals will be fearful of the possibility of the owner shooting them.

I also have, after Hurricane Andrew, while living under martial law, and would not hesitate to defend myself again.

I will say again that most people don't know I own a weapon, it's not a topic, nor a toy, nor some "status symbol". I have been taught to handle, operate, and maintain firearms by family when it was appropriate, and have taken courses taught by law enforcement and self defense professionals. I practice regularly.

The scenarios described in Edselehr's post have one thing in common: irresponsible gun owners.

I'm keeping my defensive weapon until you can take away all the offensive weapons, too.

"The scenarios described in Edselehr's post have one thing in common: irresponsible gun owners."

But when there are so many guns out there, there are going to be lots of responsible owners and lots of irresponsible owners. Problem is, everyone thinks they are responsible. And there is no way to make absolutely sure everyone is a responsible gun owner except through the kind of regulation that groups like the NRA fight so hard against.

"Yeah, I'm sure you are fine with banning any kind of gun you don't happen to like. And after you grab semi-automatics, you'll be after everything else."

The second part of your retort is where you've gone wrong. I've said repeatedly that I favor the right to bear arms. However, I don't think any citizen needs to have AR-15's loaded and ready for action in their home.

Ed is correct. If you play the percentages, guns are in the hands of MORE irresponible people than responsible people. This is what scares me, and this is why I favor much stricter gun owning guidelines, including mandatory gun registration and stiff penalites for not abiding. Every piece of research from any non-NRA backed study has proven beyond a doubt that having a gun in the home INCREASES the liklihood that you or someone in your household will be the victim of gun violence. Ask any family that has been a victim of gun violence in their own house as a result of their own weapon whether they feel guns add value to their lives. Guns take lives, period.

The basic types of weapons are Auto, semi auto, revolvers, pump and single shot.

Currently all are legal, although for a full auto you have to have a license from the feds. And some states ban them.

If you have a strong finger, you can fire a revolver as fast as a semi auto. and a pump about as fast.

Or old west style, hold the trigger and "fan " the hammer.

No legally owned full auto, has ever been used in a crime.

Full auto is just GD stupid. NOBODY but LAW enforcement should have these! PERIOD!

As usual, all the socialist hogwash is wrong.

Check out the good record of concealed hangun owners.

Liberals lose on this issue.

Herb

Check out the record of dead US citizens at the barrel of a gun, and then check out the relationship between that person and the gun used to kill them. Nobody cares about the record of the good concealed handgun owners. I'm worried about the nutjobs who you're willing to arm to the max.

"Nobody cares about the record of the good concealed handgun owners."

Spoken like a true gun-grabber. For thoughts like that, we have the 2nd Amendment.

Herb

Herb, I agree with Vitalogy yet am shopping for a gun. What label go I get from you that dismisses anything that you can't understand?

I don't want what you say I want. Explain that.

If you read the constitution, and read Jeffersons' and hamiltons' writtings, the right to bear arms is so the people will have the means to protect themselves, their government, or in some instances overthrow the govt.

Nwokie, I still need your full name, social security number, address, date of birth and mother's maiden name and phone number.

Just as in so many other issues we talk about here, you cannot close Pandora's Box. The nutjobs and irresponsible will always be among us, doing stupid and dangerous things we (and sometimes they) wish they hadn't.

I don't think playing the lowest common denominator game is the solution.

I really like the point Missing made awhile back about working hard to change the social climate (creating jobs, opportunities for education, healthcare). There will always be those who just don't give a damn how their actions affect others, but I'd be willing to bet that "getting some basic needs met" would help with the larger group of folks who give up and give in.

However, I don't think any citizen needs to have AR-15's loaded and ready for action in their home.

You are right as far as "NEED". Unless you are in the military and are issued one (and they probably don't take them home) you probably don't really "need" one.

However, the Constitution gives you and me the right to have one.

The Constitution says: 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.

It DOES NOT say: 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 as long as it fits the liberal's agenda of what kind of gun it is.

That would be like telling someone they can't buy the kind of automobile they want.

If I want a gas guzzling 8 mpg SUV and can afford the gas to put in it, then that's my choice to make. Nobody has the right to tell me I can't have it.

If I want a 50 caliber Barrett (http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_82.aspx) it's my right to own one. Do I "need" it? Nope. (Can I afford it? NOPE!) Would I love to have one? You bet!

What does " well regulated " mean, in this case?

"What does ' well regulated ' mean, in this case?"

Well-trained, well-organized and well-equipped.

Hey a Barret is cool, you can even get a single shoot one, about $2,000.

And there are so many things you can do with them. Hunting prarie dogs comes to mind.

Hunting prarie dogs comes to mind.

Might be a little overkill! (No pun intended, well, maybe a little bit!)

Although you couldhit thm from a long way off!

I was watching "Future Weapons" the other night and they were putting rounds into a 12" circle at 2500 yards! That's amazing!

You guys just proved my point. You want weapons to hunt praire dogs and to make your dick feel bigger.

It's no different than a yuppie driving an Escalade with 22" tires and pimpy chrome wheels and a stereo going boom, boom, boom to stroke his "ego".

I don't see the LIEberals trying to regulate them.

You don't see Liberals trying to regulate SUVs?

Last time I checked, SUV's aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing.

You don't see Liberals trying to regulate SUVs?

I don't see them trying to regulate SUV's.

Pissing and moaning about people driving them, yes, but not trying to regulate them.

Last time I checked, SUV's aren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing.

But, but, but automobiles kill LOTS more people than guns do.

Let's put regulations on cars.

You. (Points at someone) You can't drive a car bigger than a Toyota Corolla without being registered and licensed.

And you, (points at someone else) you can't drive the kind of car you want because we (a group of anti-whatever kind of car it is people) don't think you NEED that kind of car.

You (in general) say it's your right to buy and drive whatever car you want? Well we (that group again) don't think it applies to you as an individual, it only applies to the states. You (in general) have to walk or ride your bike.

I have a better idea. Let’s register/ban LIEberals!

SUV might be a bad choice as an example. After all, it was the shrub's tax policy that allowed business owners to buy one and write the whole thing off in a year back when Cheney first implemented his secret energy policy. I mean, how smart was that? Encouraging the purchase of SUV's could only enhance the oil problem we already knew we had.

Herb writes:
The dastardly Roe v. Wade is toast!

Question Herb, what are you going to demogog when Roe v. Wade is overturned and the gays are put back in the closet?

Better question, what are the Republicans going to demogog to stay in power. You can only keep the simpleton evangelicals interested for so long.

"That would be like telling someone they can't buy the kind of automobile they want."

But we DO have regulations that determine the kind of cars people can own and use. Armored cars are regulated as to who can own them...having a television within view of a driver is generally illegal...one cannot buy a car today without mandatory safety features such as seat belts, etc. These regulations are intended to limit how automobiles might be used to commit crimes, or how they might unintentionally cause damage or injury...exactly what the "libural regulation" of firearms tries to do.

Cars are deadly, but they are not designed to inflict damage or injury. A gun, when used for any reason, inflicts damage or injury - this is what it was designed for. Deaths caused by automobiles are a byproduct of their intended use, just like death by too much fatty food is a byproduct of simply eating.

Drawing analogies between automobile deaths and gun deaths doesn't really work.

"A gun, when used for any reason, inflicts damage or injury..."

Yeah, in my case, "damage or injury" to many paper, wood and steel targets at the range every year.

I don't have the energy to point out all of Skybill's incorrect comparisons.

I just disagree that it's the same thing to own a car as own a gun. Besides, trying to show just how different they are would just be met with " Well, that's different." And that's my point. They are different.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23780390/

"Pilots must volunteer, take a psychological test and complete a weeklong firearms training program run by the government to keep a gun in the cockpit."

Yet, the gun still went off and could have crashed the whole plane killing all on board.

"It is the first time a pilot's weapon has been fired on a plane under a program created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow pilots and others to use a firearm to defend against any act of air piracy or criminal violence..."

Pretty damned good record, IMHO.

OK. Then here's a comparison with cars that does work.

A few criminals (in comparison with the law abiding gun owners) use guns to commit crimes. Because of this the LIEberals want to put restrictions on ALL gun owners including the law abiding ones.

A few drivers (in comparison with the total number of drivers) get drunk and drive and kill or injure innocent people. Should we then require ALL cars to have built in breathalyzers that prohibit the car from starting? This would add $'s to the purchase price of ALL cars even for tea totalers.

Well, we do make sure everybody can drive.

Why not make sure they can handle their firearm?

Because that is different.

Why not make sure they can handle their firearm?

I don't have a problem with a mandatory safety class. In fact I'd encourage it.

Anybody born after 1977 has to have one to get a hunting license in WA (and probably in other states too).

"Well, we do make sure everybody can drive."

We do? You apparently don't have to contend with the number of a-holes I deal with everyday on the road! If I was ruler, I'd probably yank the licenses from over half of the so-called drivers out there.

Ok, so we try to do it. Agreed.

Essentially, my core position here is that we can and should be able to own guns. Period, that's not open for discussion. There are some very basic and not so pretty reasons for that, and I'm ok with it.

I'm all for problem mitigation. Really, that is exactly what is left! Lots of ideas out there to try: registration, education, limits and special permits for very dangerous weapons...

Here's one: Can't get a gun until after being mentored by somebody certified to do it right.

Why not?

The other part of the solution is to deal with crime generally. That means taking some of the screws off of people somehow.

Stupid people are a permenant problem. Ignorant ones can be fixed. Anybody desperate is a problem, and anybody really, really angry, and some combination of stupid / ignorant is a problem.

Finally, very scared people can be a problem.

The rest of the gun owners are just fine!

So, we attack the problem on all fronts. That's really what I need to see going forward.

There is no reason to just say, "hands off", when there are the number and degree of problems that there are today. Sorry, but that's not ok.

We can work on this --and we can get solid results. Until the hard core come to acceptance on that, it's going to continue to be an issue.

Difference is, driving a car is a privlige, owning a gun is a constitutional given right!

You have the right to own a gun, unless you do something to lose that right, such as commit a felony. The govt has the authority to restrict a privlidge, such as tests, insurance etc. It has no authority to take away or restrict a constitutional right.

Actually it does have authority to restrict rights.

This happens all the time on matters of harm and property. It's why we have case law, and the Constitution is written with EXACTLY that in mind.

Our government was structured so as to make this difficult, but possible where warranted.

"It has no authority to take away or restrict a constitutional right."

Pssst...Nwokie...don't tell anyone, but the government restricts constitutionally protected rights all the time! Yea, it's true! That's why I don't have the right to issue death threats to the President on this board without getting in major trouble, though it's clearly in violation of my unfettered constitutional right to free speech!! Bummer, huh?

"It is the first time a pilot's weapon has been fired on a plane under a program created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow pilots and others to use a firearm to defend against any act of air piracy or criminal violence..."

"Pretty damned good record, IMHO."

Ahh yes, maybe on the surface you can say that. However, upon further review, the facts show that this is the first AND only time a gun has been fired on an airline since 9/11 when pilots were allowed to carry concealed weapons. So once again, we have a situation where a gun has not been needed, yet has gone off accidently putting all passengers aboard the plane in danger. Chalk up yet another case of a gun making everyone around the gun toter less safe.

"The TSA initially opposed the Flight Deck Officer program to arm and train cockpit personnel. Agency officials worried that introducing a weapon to commercial flights was dangerous and that other security improvements made it unnecessary. Congress and pilots backed the program."

"The TSA has never been real supportive of this program," said Mike Boyd, who runs the Colorado-based aviation consulting firm The Boyd Group. "It's something I think Congress kind of put on them."

The TSA is 100% correct, and the pilots and Congress are wrong. If someone is to be packing a gun on an airline, it should be a trained air marshall, not some rent-a-cop wannbe that should be focused on flying the airline rather than crashing it playing hero.

Chalk up yet another case of a gun making everyone around the gun toter less safe.

Yep. Those darn guns. They just jump up and go off. Gonna have to do something about dem guns.

It's got nothing to do with the person carrying the gun. Nope. Nothing.

We certainly can't take any responsibility for our actions. It would be un-American to actually take responsibility for your own actions.

Gotta blame someone or something other than yourself

This thread is going nowhere, just round and round and I can see that no one is going to change their views.

So I'm bowing out from this discussion. Y'all keep arguing about how bad guns are and I'll keep building my armory.

I have 3 reasons to acquire more guns. 1) I want to. 2) Its my right to. 3) It pisses off the liberals!

"Ahh yes, maybe on the surface you can say that. However, upon further review, the facts show that this is the first AND only time a gun has been fired on an airline since 9/11 when pilots were allowed to carry concealed weapons. So once again, we have a situation where a gun has not been needed, yet has gone off accidently putting all passengers aboard the plane in danger. Chalk up yet another case of a gun making everyone around the gun toter less safe."

I personally feel safer knowing that the pilot and/or first officer of the plane I am flying on has been properly trained and equipped with a weapon, knowing that IF the need were to arise to use said weapon according to the training he or she has received to ensure that the passengers and crew will arrive safely at their intended destination instead of in a skyscraper, or the Pentagon, or a field in Pennsylvania ... I will be a happy man.

I personally have home protection. I have no problem using it either. Does this make me a bad or dangerous person? That's for you to decide. I suggest making up your mind by NOT trying to break and enter into my house, you might not like the results.

Hear, hear, Brian! Nicely written.

"I personally feel safer knowing that the pilot and/or first officer of the plane I am flying on has been properly trained and equipped with a weapon."

Ask the people on the plane where the person that is "properly trained" and let their gun fire off feel safer. I'll be you'll lose that vote by a large margin.

Scoreboard:

Gun used in self defense: 0
Gun subject to accidental firing: 1

Well if you apply the law of averages or statistics, the fact that the first time it has gone off, was accidentally, points to probably not the last time this will happen and for this reason.

It was bound to happen - I'm just surprised it was the FIRST time.

Military pilots fly with sidearms all the time, plus the crew chief is also armed, and there has never been an aircraft accident because of it.

And I haven't seen where the weapon was when it went off, if it was in the lockbox, no problem.

Nwokie, we both know military pilots and their crew chiefs get more training and experience with their fire arms than civilian pilots.

For the record, I'm fine with air marshalls packing heat. It's their job to carry a gun and I trust them to do what's right. I'm not fine with macho pilots trying to play cop. With all the security to get on a plan these days, I don't see the necessity of any pilot to be packing heat.

Pat Buchanan on Bush's "Isms"

Air Force pilots get the one day training class, once a year.

I don't care about the Air Force. We're talking commercial airlines here.

As soon as Nwokie starts chiming in, it's over.

I'm done. He's becoming the new Wayne - but slower.

Most airline pilots are ex air force, and it stands to reason, if they didn't have any problems carrying a weapon in the AF, they sholdn't have a problem carrying a weapon on a comercial plane.

Okay, I never thought about it that way. I agree with you now as that makes perfect sense.

As soon as Nwokie starts chiming in, it's over.

I'm done. He's becoming the new Wayne - but slower."


You're turning into a Trixter. Not good.

Yeah...that may be true, but at least Chickenjuggler isn't a republican poseur.

Herb

So far every indication, is the weapon was in the lock box when it went off, simple solution require all weapons to be magazine fed semo auto's, and keep the magazine out of the weapon.
Occassionally a policemans weapon goes off, when in the holster, is that a reason for police not to carry weapons?

I was on a training march, when the guy carrying the -60 sat it down, and it went off, fired about 2 dozen rounds, we never did figure out why.

I've never heard of a gun going off without being touched. Something causes the gun to go off.

If a round is chambered, and a spring fails, it can go off, if the weapon is cocked, and you jar it, such as an airplane hitting turblance, it can go off. I've seen weapons stacked, and someone doesn't do it right, and a round is chambered, go off.

And I have on 2 instances seen a weapon go off, around aircraft, when a powerful radar signal hits it.

The key, you don't chamber a round, until you think you might need it.

DA said>>>>
You're turning into a Trixter. Not good.

Well thank you for taking notice of me....
WOW!
Your intelligence is escaping you...

If a weapon goes off without someone firing it purposefully, it's user error. A properly handled gun will never fire stray bullets and put people in danger.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe the gun "just" fired without some kind of outside influence.

There is not enough information in the published stories to make an informed conclusion.

We may never know the full story.

There is another way to think about this.

Every gun I've seen has an inactive state, and various active ones. If left in the inactive state, it takes a lot to get one to mis-fire, and that's only for those very poorly designed guns.

Left in the active state means user error period.

Given the nature of the device, it's very highly likely somebody didn't do what they were supposed to. Meaning, we've actually got to have the full story to know that it was in-fact not user error.

If a weapon goes off without someone firing it purposefully, it's user error. A properly handled gun will never fire stray bullets and put people in danger.

This has NEVER happened to me.

I suspect the pilot was playing around with the gun. As has been stated, a gun with the safety engaged, safely in it's case isn't going to go off. Somebody in the cockpit got bored.