I hope Obama knows what he's doing.

what is the position now of "democrats" in congress; the same ol' same ol'??

are they going to continue to cower before the NRA and kiss their phat arse?

or are they going to finally push for some responsible new laws?

Oh wait, they all got kicked out. It's not "cowering before the NRA" it is facing the fact that public opionion is against the idea. The NRA has over four million members. There are also 80 million gun owners 25 percent of whom are Democrats. That is a massive grass roots force. The NRA backed Bernie Sanders and Brian Schweitzer. If you were in Ohio, they endorsed Strickland the last election. That doesn't excuse Wayne and Ted on the board.
The Brady Campaign claims 23 thousand members. Most of their members are rich people. Other than a few 1 percenters and media talking heads, no believes their disinformation and bullshit.
You might not like it, but that is the reality.

LOL!! who would that be, I wonder? Three guys total?

gimme a break.

pathetic lobbying groups like the NRA and AIPAC running our congress is just one more example
of how utterly F***ed our system is.

the dems in congress need to grow a spine-- and soon.

Nixon, Reagan, Luger (there is an irony for you) then there is:
Bloomburg, Kaisich, Aaarnold, "America's mayor" Rudy, Mittins (the only person who can pander to Brady and NRA in the same speech)

Those are just the ones off the top of my head. Grow a spine and go against the majority of people in the US? Gee, that doesn't sound very democratic does it?

Uhh.. how do you know?

clue: I'm old enough to have had a draft card (late) in the Vietnam war fiasco. wish I still had it, but
it got wet when my wallet fell in the drink one time...So, you're wrong.

You know, it's "funny", when I look at the polling regarding crucial issues for Americans, I _never_ see
"Gun Ownership" listed in the top five concerns.

that's because we have 270 Million guns in our nation. the notion "we don't have enough" or "the
gov't is limiting our right to own guns" is absurd propaganda from the gun lobby which the knuckle
draggers are fond of buying into

said most people oppose it. Slight difference.

Hell, I know an antigun republican that OWNS GUNS!!! His rationale is that people "should not be allowed to own this shit"... but if other's are going to be allowed to then he sure as hell isn't going to be left without some.

In capitalist sort of way, it makes perfect sense; don't ever pass up anything, needed or not.

I'll buy it weather I need it or not because it's a good deal.

Republicans.

They do exist. Perhaps fewer in number than anti-gun Dems, but every bit as un/misinformed.

republicans all of them.

Tell the American people "We couldn't care less what you want. We're going to forge ahead with more gun restrictions, despite the fact that they won't be effective at enhancing public safety and are extremely unpopular. What are you gonna do about it? Vote us out? I'd like to see you try!"

Keep in mind that all rifles, of which "assault weapons" is a subset of, account for less than 3% of the murders in the U.S.

Prior to 1992 the NRA existed primarily as a shooting safety organization the 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban galvanized NRA leadership and turned them into the political juggernaut that they are today.

Bill Clinton is on record as stating that the Democrats lost the 1994 midterm elections (thereby giving control of the entire house to the Republicans for 10 years) as a DIRECT RESULT of his signing the 1994 AWB into law.

It is believed that Al Gore’s strong support for gun control cost him the 2000 election.

Prior to 1992 AR15s were considered a novelty item few serious shooters owned them after the AWB lapsed in ’04 they became the most popular firearm ever produced in America’s history.

According to the DOJ twice as many people are beaten to death w/ hands and feet as are killed w/ any type of rifle in America every year.

George Bush is on record as stating the he would sign a renewal of the AWB if congress put it on his desk in 2004. Had he done so it is very likely it would have cost him the election.

Are you absolutely certain that this is the issue you want Obama pushing in an election year?

and by that time the media had turned into full corporate agenda, thanks to Bill Clinton signing the wonderful communication act of 2000

I disagree with your assessment why we lost elections. We ran terrible campaigns, but also to a large degree the corporate media carried the water for the republicans

and you are certainly right about the election, Trunk was talking about elections before that and what Clinton said in his book.

They were powerful back then, I do not think they had the influence they have today

it is the ability for the NRA, SAF, and others to mobilize a massive grassroots force. It isn't about the NRA, it is about 80 million people from casual gun owners to hunters and competitive shooters being compared to gangsters by classists and regional bigots. It is less about "clinging to our guns" as it is not liking being the scapegoat for DC's, Newark's and Chicago's gang problems and the drug culture that fuel and fund those gangs. I think criminologist James Wright put it best before congress in 1995:



It is not about the evil NRA or the gun industry, it is about trap shooters and farmers telling astro turfing millionaires and celebrities, many of whom are part of the drug culture, to go fuck themselves.

Many of the laws that the most liberal members of our party support are basically useless and qualify as merely "feel good" legislation.

The original "assault weapons" ban NEVER banned evil black plastic semi-auto firearms that resemble the far more lethal fully automatic weapons used by military forces. It did forbid the sale of such weapons with certain features which the manufacturers simply eliminated.



How many people who are interested in buying an "assault style" rifle are worried about having a bayonet mount or a flash suppressor on the firearm they purchase?

But you might argue that high capacity magazines were banned while the law was in effect and you would be WRONG! The sale of such magazines (clips) manufactured after a certain cut of date was illegal but plenty made before that date were readily available. They were simply more expensive and even so they sold like hotcakes to those who decided to buy "assault weapons."

Before the "ban" plastic black rifles were unpopular with shooters. During the ban many shooters discovered the advantages that these modern rifles have over more standard rifles. They are accurate, very adaptable and used for competitive target shooting today and also for hunting. (No you don't need a 100 round magazine to hunt a deer and most states that allow such weapons to be used for hunting game such as deer require a maximum sized magazine of no more than five rounds.)

The "assault weapons" ban actually made such weapons very popular and today they are among the best selling weapons in our nation. I have been a regular shooter for over 40 years. I witnessed the effect of the "assault weapons" ban and yet to this day I still do not own one as I personally see no need. This might change if I move to a more rural environment.

I'm using the "assault weapons" ban as an example of foolish "feel good" laws often pushed by the more liberal members of our party. Perhaps you have different and possibly truly effective laws in mind. I do always not follow the philosophy of the NRA as they oppose any and all new firearm legislation. I actually wish to go even further than the gun control groups and not only eliminate the "gun show loophole" but require an NICS background check for the sale of all firearms including all private sales as long as the price for such a check was reasonable. I also support improving the existing NICS background check system in order to better input data concerning those convicted of a violent crime as well as those who have been legally adjudged as having serious mental issues on a more timely basis.

Of course I support better enforcement of the firearms laws already on the books in many states. Obviously the straw purchase of firearms and the smuggling of firearms so purchased is a major problem in our inner cities. I believe that anyone convicted of engaging in the straw purchase of a firearm or its smuggling should be prosecuted as an accessory to any crime committed with that firearm. When one or two people end up in jail for life for dealing in firearm smuggling, we may see a decrease in this form of crime. Since 80% of violent crime is committed by the criminal element or criminal gangs in our society, it also makes commonsense to not only proactively combat crime but also to treat criminal gangs as terrorists (which they are).

which are rarely used in crime no less?

Yeah, no potential for political backlash there at all.

Then I suggest you spend your time on republican websites convincing your fellow gun owners that the NRA is lying and President Obama will not take their guns, rather than arguing with liberals over support of gun regulations.

but I have a few issues with your post:

1. As far as you know, I don't own a gun
2. I don't post to Republican websites
3. If Obama is talking on guns, I certainly can't talk over him. That's why I hope he knows what he's doing; anything I say will be like a whisper in a thunderstorm.
4. It's foolish liberals (and silly non-liberals like "the police should go on strike" Bloomie) who need to change or at least shut up. Wise liberals, on the other hand, support the full Constitution.

there is the possibility of a real backlash here ...
want to really fire up the GOP base ...
want to see a bunch of Dems cross over and vote
against President Obama ....
let this get spun into going after guns ...

There was no "AK47" used in the Aurora incident. There was no "Assault Rifle" used in this incident. Both of those items are heavily regulated and as of May 1986, both new supplies were cut off to the general public. You can't buy a new AK47 and haven't been able to for at least 25 years... that's why even buying one of the old used collectors pieces costs you over $20,000. They are awesomely rare and greatly restricted.

Is it too much to ask that the president refrain from using buzzwords and false insinuations to rally support for common sense gun laws? He must think we're all stupid.

I do commend him for his other remarks, though... and agree 100%:

speech writers who think it is beneath their dignity research technical subjects.

He wrote that he wanted to ban guns in the city and was very anti-gun in his career. He wrote about his anti-gun views in The Audacity of Hope. He had to know that he was going to have to deal with the third rail of politics as he ran for president.

He had a personal responsibility to inform himself; he should personally know better, and he should know how people feel about factually false and misleading statements on guns.

At the very least, he could have a competent gun person review his speeches before he gives them—a Gunny Sergeant nearing retirement, perhaps. He may personally despise guns, but screwing up could be expensive, for him and us.

He should do better.

isn't wise...on the other hand those "commie rifles" have it coming, maybe if enough rednecks believe Muslims are going to attack their hunting club with AK he can gather support for a new terrorist/communist gun ban.

AR's are safe

why do car dealerships who offer guns on Veterans Day seem to offer the AK? An AR or M-1 carbine would be more appropriate.

AKs are cheaper than ARs. AKs retail for between $480-550 dollars, ARs go for between $600-1200 dollars. Oh I remember the good old days when I bought my AK for $350 dollars in the summer of 1987 at Big Tom's Pawnshop in Savannah, this was just before George Bush the 1st outlawed their importation in 91 or 92 from China. He was listening to Bill Bennett(whom I never cared for) exhorting him to ban them. That Bush miscalculated too and by stabbing gun owners in the back his traditional supporters stayed home and Bill Clinton won in 92.

Bill Clinton knew what he was doing and was warned not to do it by senior Democrats back in 93, as a result of him blowing them off it took Congressional Democrats an electoral generation to pick up the pieces and they still haven't fully recovered; It took George Bush & Dick Cheney running the country into an economic disaster to give Democrats an opening to recover.

Mr. President don't make the same mistake again; there has been ample warning given.

But I think you're underestimating the numbers of pro-gun Democrats. I think this election is going to be tighter than the last one, and he shouldn't be stepping on toes unnecessarily.

I think you guys can make it without another "assault" weapon ever being manufactured again. I just don't think it will hurt you, and will be good for society.

I think he had to say something after the latest shooting.

And I still believe anyone who would stay at home, or vote for a Republican, over guns will not vote for Obama under any circumstances.

You lot don't seem to have much credibility with them. Or are do you believe that their votes can be dispensed with?

Most of them are right wingers, I guarantee it. They aren't going to vote for Obama.

If guns would make someone vote for a friggin right winger, so be it.


These losers just aren't gonna vote for Obama:

.......if you think that our hysteria and dishonesty on the issue of firearm restriction doesn't cost us votes from honest, issue-educated Independents/centrists.

high regard that they'll vote for a right winger.

but I might leave the presidential ballot blank. If he cares so little for my 2nd amendment rights what other rights is he willing to ignore and limit. Case in point, look at what happened to the democrats after they passed the assault weapons ban. They were swept out en mass the next election.

A few at home, OK.

As usual, your bias clouds your "reasoning". Not only do we lose the votes of single-issue Independents who might otherwise vote D, but we lose credibility in general.

People who know the facts re. the gun restriction/gun violence issue have every right to say to themselves.........

"They've lied about "plastic guns". They've lied about "cop killer bullets". They've lied about "assault weapons". They've lied about the crime solving benefits of ballistic fingerprinting. (etc., etc., etc.)

What else do they lie about?!"

Do you really think this gun loving tough guy is going to vote for a Democrat?




Got this from another excellent thread started here today. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021073473

or are you accusing us of something such as being right wingers, neo confederates (notice the CSA national flag in the background)?

I wasn't talking about guys like him, was I?

for financial support from President Obama.

I explained that while I donated the maximum to his campaign the first time around, I could no longer donate my hard-earned money to a political party that engages in self-sabotage via bad decisions on gun restriction - thereby flushing my donation down the loo.

People should vote with their wallets and feet, not just the ballot box.

have received bundles of fundraising mail from them as well. I've lost track of the number of letters I've sent back explaining my position -- and I hardly think I'm alone in this practice. There's a reason why references to gun restriction have been scrubbed from the party platform.

I used to not donate anything to Obama because he was silent on guns, but now I'm going to send him about 1000 times what you "stopped" sending him because he grew a spine.

That's amusing, given that I sent him the legal limit. Keep your mendacity going, though......it does wonders for what little cred you have.

He very carefully said "AK-47s". Which, as we all know, are not in common circulation anyway.

I also notice that he finished his video with talking about "reducing violence", not gun control.

I don't know what to make of his position. I can't tell if he is advocating an assault weapon ban or just making noises to make the gun-ignorant people think he is.

He's playing with fire.

The trouble is, the results he gets from the use of those words may not be the ones he intends...

He has a long game that he's just not divulging yet.

Everyone should be buying Made in USA products and supporting the economy.

Some American companies should step up to the plate and start cranking out some AK clones so we don't have to keep importing them!

He was really clever saying that AK47 should be in the hands of soldiers since true AK47 are either in the hands of soldiers or tightly regulated by NFA.

The next day Carney was clearing up any misconceptions about new federal laws.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-plays-down-prospect-gun-laws-224057070.html

To own a gun, its STUPID. It's our right and nobody shall ever take it away. Bad ppl will get their guns no matter what, why shouldnt we have the means to defend ourself. BTW, Coors lite rules!

President Obama is supporting the Taliban and the outlaws in Iraq with this comment:

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

I don't get it. None of our soldiers use AK-47s and I'm fairly certain none of our allies do either.