Why can't we win the NRA vote? (A new prespective on gun control)

[Hippo_Tron]

Lets say a Democrat walks out and says they want to protect Americans' right to own a gun. He says he will require background checks (as almost all politicians will agree with this). But what most politicians don't do is talk about the results of this beyond criminals not getting guns. Criminals not getting guns = people not getting killed = gun control activists not running ad campaigns and sueing gun manufacturers because criminals are killing people. Now lets say the government starts encouraging locking devices being included with guns. Guns locked = kids not shooting themselves = gun control activists not running ad campaigns and sueing gun manufacturers because kids are shooting themselves. Now I'll admit this is MUCH easier said than done and it's not a perfect solution but doesn't it make sense somwhat. A few simple regulations meant entirely so that criminals cant get guns means less gun control activists and if there's one thing the NRA can't stand is gun control activists. Granted I don't think any solution proposed by a Democrat could get the NRA to change it's position on which party to support but I think it could make either a big decline in it's membership or at least get a nice chunk of it to vote democratic.

[unfrigginreal]

1. Welcome Hippo_Tron!

Unless I'm missing something, you've pretty much described the position now held by Democrats on gun control. Gun safety locks, background checks and banning assault weapons ARE Democratic positions. I'm not aware of any Democrat that doesn't want to protect Americans' right to own guns.

If you investigate it further you'd probably find that the "activists" are on the side of the NRA pushing to prevent safety locks, prevent background checks and prevent banning even Bazookas.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Yes, but...

Those are the Democratic positions but as I was saying earlier we do nothing to show why those positions can actually be helpful in ensuring Americans' right to own a gun and giving gun control activists nothing to complain about. A lot of the NRA membership consists of simple minded people (not to say that all of them are) and their leadreship runs sways them to their side with paranoia that they need guns to defend themselves from the government. Simple minded people can have their mind changed very quickly.

[kwolf68]

3. Not that simple

The National Rifle Association is NOT just about the 2nd amendment, but they have lobbied against ANY piece of legislation involving the humane treatment of animals.

They have lobbied against the Downed Animal Protection Act (a bill to address is how livestock injured is treated) for god’s sake. Of course, such insidious “hunting” practices like bear-baiting and canned hunting are always supported (against any laws banning these acts) by these people.

Many Liberal activists, while not being vegans, are passionate defenders of compassion and empathy toward animals. The Humane Society of the United States has over a million members. I have much more in common with HSUS than the drones in the NRA and I’d rather keep HSUS members on our side than the NRA.

Courting the NRA is a lost cause. We should just chalk it up that they will always be on the right-wing in this nation. Read their American Rifleman sometime...It's incredible.

As far as the drones who actually give money to that organization, I am sure many of them are fine people...and both of them are welcomed to the Democratic side.

[samsingh]

4. because the debate is not honest

the NRA debate was the first example of repug tricks to frame an argument so that they win no matter what.

and we fall for it more times than not.

[w4rma]

5. Gov. Dean on gun regulation (states' rights, pro-gun)

…
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to an issue that you seem to break away from liberal Democratic orthodoxy and that’s gun control. This is a brochure in your gubernatorial campaign from the NRA.

“In November we should return a truly pro-gun Governor to office by re-electing Governor Howard Dean.” And again, David Broder’s coverage of your campaign. “Dean bragged that he has ‘an A rating’ from the National Rifle Association... he argued that ‘as Democrats, we ought to say keep the federal laws we have, enforce them, but no new laws.’ Get the gun issue off the table. It cost Al Gore three states—and the presidency.”

Which states did Gore lose because of guns?

GOV. DEAN: I think Montana, Tennessee and West Virginia. There may be more, but those are the ones I would guess, given their patterns with previous elections.

MR. RUSSERT: Democrats in Congress right now are saying that at gun shows, you can buy a gun on Saturday or Sunday and there is no background check, because many law enforcement agencies are closed. They want to extend that deadline. Would you support that kind of gun control?

GOV. DEAN: What I would support—I do support closing the gun show loophole, but I would like to see InstaCheck, which is the same system that we have elsewhere, and I think if it takes keeping somebody on duty in law enforcement agencies, that would be fine. Look, let me explain to you why I take the position I do on gun control. In Vermont, in the last 11 years, we’ve had between a high of 25 and a low of five homicides per year. Most of them, the majority, are domestic related, not many of them have firearms and not one of them would be changed if we had gun control. We essentially have no gun control in Vermont. All we have is you can’t bring guns to school.

Now, I don’t believe for a moment that that’s appropriate for New York or Los Angeles or Washington, D.C. But the point I’m trying to make here is why does gun control have to be a national issue? We have some good federal laws. I support keeping them. We should close the gun show loophole with Instacheck and after that why can’t each state make its own laws? Why can’t each state address what they want to do about gun control as a state? Because what we need in Vermont is not the same thing as what you may need in Washington, D.C.

A guy in Tennessee told me, “Look, when you say gun control to me in Tennessee, it sounds like you want to take away the squirrel rifle that my father gave to me. When you say gun control in New York, it sounds like you want to get the Uzis and the illegal handguns off the street.” It’s two different problems. We have national laws. I’m not in favor of repealing them, but I think additional gun control ought be to be done on a state-by-state basis if the state wants it and we ought not to have a one-size-fits-all federal government approach.

MR. RUSSERT: But keep people traveling from state to state very easily.

GOV. DEAN: That’s right. And Virginia is a perfect example of this. New York claimed that a lot of their guns were coming from Virginia, so they had lax laws, so they signed a bill that said you can only buy one gun a month. That’s a Virginia law. It doesn’t apply to other states. It seems to me it addressed the problem in Virginia successfully. Why can’t we do that?

Democrats are getting killed on gun control. Democratic activists who basically are in favor of gun control are glad to see me coming in the West and the South, because they do not want to lose any more national elections on the gun issue.
…
http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2002_08_25_dean2004_archive.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=