HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Democratic 2012 Platform ... » Reply #12

Response to glacierbay (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:59 AM

12. I support the "well-regulated" interpretation of the 2nd amendment

not the "robust" interpretation of the 2nd amendment that is promoted by the NRA.

The story that Democrats lost congress in 1994 as a result of the Assault Weapons Ban is a myth promoted by the NRA.

The notion that gun control was responsible for the Democrats’ debacle 15 years ago was floated by Richard Gephardt, the former Democratic House leader, and other pols and commentators after the ’94 election. But it was Bill Clinton who gave it current credence. “The N.R.A. could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House speaker,” Mr. Clinton wrote in his 2004 autobiography, pumping up the gun lobby and, not incidentally, himself by attributing the body blow to his party to his principled leadership on guns.

It is hard to make a case that the assault weapons ban was decisive in 1994.

The law certainly enraged many N.R.A. members and might explain the loss of certain Democratic seats. However, there were other major factors in the Democrats’ 1994 loss, starting with perceived Democratic arrogance and corruption (overdrafts at the House bank came to symbolize that).

Add to that voter unhappiness with Mr. Clinton’s budget, his health care fiasco, the Republican Party’s success in recruiting appealing candidates, and that ingenious Republican vehicle for nationalizing the elections known as the “Contract With America.” The contract, by the way, did not mention guns.

Mr. Clinton’s successful 1996 re-election campaign actually stressed his gun control achievements. James and Sarah Brady spoke in prime time at the ’96 Democratic convention, and Clinton campaign ads trumpeted his role in enacting the assault weapons ban and the ’93 Brady law requiring background checks for gun buyers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/opinion/09sat4.html?_r=1

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
SecularMotion Sep 2012 OP
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #1
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #2
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #3
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #4
glacierbay Sep 2012 #5
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #6
glacierbay Sep 2012 #8
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #9
glacierbay Sep 2012 #10
LineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply I support the "well-regulated" interpretation of the 2nd amendment
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #12
glacierbay Sep 2012 #13
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #14
glacierbay Sep 2012 #18
rrneck Sep 2012 #19
slackmaster Sep 2012 #7
DWC Sep 2012 #11
alabama_for_obama Sep 2012 #24
aikoaiko Sep 2012 #15
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #16
aikoaiko Sep 2012 #17
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #20
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #21
aikoaiko Sep 2012 #22
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #23
alabama_for_obama Sep 2012 #25
Please login to view edit histories.