Just why is the Democratic Party against guns?

[Mend]

Our family has guns for skeet and trap shooting, never live animals. My husband was in the military as a young man and knows how to use them. I know some people are careless but they are careless with bottles of lye, too, and swimming pools and cars and every other damn thing. Guns are part of our culture, the way wine and cigarettes are a part of France, and that's not exactly a healthy life style either. It is tragic when kids die playing with guns, it is tragic when guns are used in crime but maybe it is time to change our position. I think we should all join the NRA and make it a progressive organization. I don't want to be in it now with all those creeps but if all of us joined, maybe we could take this issue off the board.

[...of J.Temperance]

1. I have guns and my family all have guns...but

PLEASE let's NOT have another HUGE gun thread...we already had one last week that got like 400 plus responses and ended up getting locked, because it moved away from being about guns after about the 400th post and ended up getting pretty nasty with name calling and all sorts of shit.

I'm a staunch Democrat and I'm pro-2nd Amendment.

[RC]

33. Hey, I think that calling shit names, stinks!

Wait a minute, what was it you said again??

[sepia_steel]

2. It isn't.

That's just what the GOP wants all the gun owners to beleive. it gets them votes.

And NO NO NO on the NRA.

We should make our own organization. ;)

[goddess40]

9. From what I can tell we just want people to be responsible

for the guns they have. The right just likes to lie and this is one of the big ones they've been telling for a long time.


Imagine that, we want people to be responsible for themselves!!

[we can do it]

37. Thats my take on it

Responsibility - Nothing wrong with guns if they are treated with respect.

[benEzra]

50. There are a minority of Dems that want to outlaw some guns

but they are unfortunately the ones who get most of the air time on the issue.

The Democratic party's main problem on the gun issue seems to be gullibility. If the anti-gun lobby tags a gun with a Scary Name (e.g., "assault weapon", "sniper rifle", "pocket rocket", whatever), there are those who won't look past the label and will jump on the "let's ban those" bandwagon. Look at the history of the "assault weapons" bait-and-switch, which even some prominent party leaders were taken in by, and you'll see what I mean.

[Paladin]

66. The Most Gullible Segment In The Gungeon....

...is the RKBA cadre. You people have long since overdosed on the NRA's Kool-Aid, to the point you're willing to believe the absolute worst about Democratic officeholders, publicly vilifying them in this forum, day after day after day. And you spew all this crap and still expect the rest of us to take your demands on gun policy seriously. That's a hell of a lot more gullible than somebody on my side's not being familiar with this week's definition of an Assault Weapon......

[ManiacJoe]

69. It is not gullibility of the RKBA when you can

point to all the proposed and passed legislation. Unfortunately it is the gullibility of the uninformed masses that the anti-gunners can count on while using the Democratic officeholders who are often just as ignorant of the issues (or just plain stupid, one hopes not).

[Nickster]

3. 228 Years of Democracy and not a single gun has been taken away from

all those NRA types.

It's America, no one wants to take anyone's gun away. It's just another stinking wedge issue lie.

[Fescue4u]

21. Some New Orleans residents would disagree

[NorthernSpy]

64. yes, and notice how the media spreading false rumors of mass mayhem...

... made the confiscations inevitable. All of a sudden, nearly anything the authorities felt like doing was magically "justified", whether it was legal or not. Even the most basic rights just melted away.

All too often, persons in authority helped spread the rumors to the media.

We should remember how this happened.




Shocking... 'cause it wasn't true!

[iverglas]

65. funny, isn't it?

Every other time, it's rkba-heads spreading rumours of mass mayhem in their efforts to persuade everybody that they (the rkba-heads -- and of course everybody else) need those guns ...

[Fescue4u]

67. Wasnt true? You should have told the judge

That way he wouldnt have had to bother with an injuction to stop it.

[NorthernSpy]

70. and if you reread my post...

... you'll notice that I didn't say that the news of the gun confiscations wasn't true. I said that the news reports of mass mayhem weren't true, and I provided a link to an article on that subject.

Furthermore, I said the mayhem rumors made the gun confiscations inevitable.

[Fescue4u]

74. Well I did reread a couple times

Because I wasnt entirely sure what you were saying. In the end I made the wrong conclusion. My fault.

Im quite willing to be believe that the news reports were wrong (about mass mayhem), but I disagree that they made gun grabbing inevitable.

It may make us observers of the news think that gun grabbing was inevitable, but certainly the police agencys involved in the gun confiscation were there and knew the real truth....Which makes their behavior all the more dispecable.

[Silverhair]

45. Yes, it has happened.

Morton Grove, IL. Several other places too, but I would have to do some googling to find them.

[400Years]

53. you must have slept through the New Orleans confiscations

[Silverhair]

71. And now the handguns in San Francisco will be confiscated. NT

[derby378]

83. self-delete

Found myself making a redundant point. Nevermind...

[SMSTRICK]

88. What About New Orleans ?

IT DID HAPPEN !....As long as American citizens are willing to sacrifice their liberty for protection , they deserve neither. Benjamin Franklin stated this, and I agree. If we as a people are willing to sacrifice liberties when terrorists attack,...then the terrorists WIN !.....When American citizens are willing to sacrifice liberty,...the government "assumes" that it can just walk in and take our liberties away from us.
Without the 2nd Amendment,....we would become subjects rather than citizens. The 2nd Amendment is not only there as a acknowledgement of the right of self defence. It is also there as a defence against government tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege granted to the citizens by the government,....it is a RIGHT of the people in spite of our government. If the government can grant us rights,.....then they can take them away.

[seriousstan]

89. California SB23

Learn a little.

[Inland]

4. And why is it against marriage and national defense?

Democrats are for registration and machine guns and not letting crazy people or criminals have them. Only in the NRA argument that every restriction is on the slippery slope to guns being confiscated is that position in any way, shape or form "against guns".

[enfield collector]

41. registration always leads to confiscation, ask the jews in

nazi germany or the cambodians or the rwandans what happened next.

[iverglas]

61. yeah, and ask the Canadians and Australians

recently reduced to hunting big game with slingshots.

[Romulus]

43. it's like the abortion debate

Republicans say that want "reasonable restrictions" on the "important medical decision" affecting women.

Do you think anti-choice types will stop at the first "reasonable restriction?"

It's the same situation with firearms.

[B Calm]

5. I never thought the democratic party ever was against guns. Seems

like a liberal idea to me to allow citizens gun ownership..

[cwa457]

44. Then this was another Feinstein?

Dianne Feinstein: "Gun laws are for everybody but me."
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995. Does this statement include Ms. Feinstein's own handgun, which she has a permit to carry in California, or only the handguns of "common citizens?"

I don't mind an elitist so much as a hypocritical elitist

[benEzra]

56. Actually, that quotation refers to

all self-loading handguns and rifles holding over 10 rounds, all self-loading shotguns holding over 5 rounds, and all civilian self-loaders with styling she doesn't like (such as rifles with protruding handgrips).

Though as mayor of San Fransciso she did push for banning and confiscation of all handguns, except the .38 snubby SHE carried on her person...

"Gun rights for me, but not for thee..."

[iverglas]

57. call me an elitist

all civilian self-loaders with styling she doesn't like

I'm for banning pesticides with substances in them that I don't like.

Me 'n Dianne, we're just a couple of gals with better taste than the rest of you, that must be the problem.

[iverglas]

59. I don't mind a newbie

I don't mind an elitist so much as a hypocritical elitist

I've just never been fond of newbies pulling the same tired old shit as has been pulled here several hundred times already.

Got any new shit for us?

Oh, well, you do offer this:

Dianne Feinstein: "Gun laws are for everybody but me."
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995. Does this statement include Ms. Feinstein's own handgun, which she has a permit to carry in California, or only the handguns of "common citizens?"

and I would request a citation for that first bit in quotation marks, which is new to me, at least ... except that, oh well, it wasn't actually new at all:

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html

Dianne Feinstein: "Gun laws are for everybody but me."

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995. Does this statement include Ms. Feinstein's own handgun, which she has a permit to carry in California, or only the handguns of "common citizens?"

A newbie who can cut and paste; now there's a novelty.

Sadly, The Stentorian doesn't cite the first bit of its "quotation" to anywhere either.

I do always wonder, though, why anyone using The Stentorian as his/her source never quotes that next bit:

Important note: reply from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown
I received a reply on 3/13/2000 from Mayor Brown re: my letter about this incident. He states that:
1.Ms. Feinstein voluntarily relinquished her pistol permit and weapon a long time ago. ...

Of course, I always wonder why anybody would use The Stentorian as his/her source in the first place.

[Sgent]

6. Because a large portion

of the Democratic party is located in urban areas -- where guns are seen as evil, and not as a normal part of life.

Of course their are exceptions on both sides, but people in rural areas are more likely to hunt, to shoot, and to own guns. They are also more likely to believe in self reliance because many government services (like police and fire) are limited or non-existant.

People in urban areas are less likely to hunt, and to only see guns as instruments of crime and death -- hence their aversion and opposition.

[melody]

7. Two of the most avid sports gun enthusiasts I've ever known were Democrats

That's just a GOP myth to divide and conquer.

[movonne]

8. I don't think that the Dem's are against guns, they just want for them

to be registered...after all we have to get drivers licensed why not have to get guns licensed ???

[JJackFlash]

10. fanatic repugnicans

are completely unwilling to draw the line anywhere.
Why not machine guns? grenades? RPGs? bazookas? nuclear bombs?
Thr NRA is a hideous outfit run by wingnuts - don't give them a dime of your money.

[benEzra]

58. Umm...the NRA supports restrictions on all of the above...

I sense a bit of a misconception here...

All of the above are VERY strictly controlled under current law by the National Firearms Act of 1934, and no one is trying to change that. The NFA restricts all automatic or burst-mode weapons, sound-suppressed weapons, firearms over .50 caliber (with exceptions for some larger-caliber sporting guns, like .729 caliber shotguns), disguised firearms (cell phone guns, cane guns), smoothbore handguns, guns easily convertible to full-auto, etc. etc. etc. Current law also bans Kevlar-piercing ammunition, guns that cannot be detected by X-ray or metal detectors, and requires background checks on every purchase from a gun dealer. Criminals and the mentally incompetent are prohibited by law from so much as touching a gun or a single round of ammunition, and every gun sold in this country is tracked via FFL's and point-of-sale BATFE Form 4473's to ensure they can be traced. The NRA supports all of that, and helped write a good bit of it.

What gun owners and the NRA support is preserving the right of the law-abiding, who can pass a background check, to own NON-automatic civilian firearms under .51 caliber that meet the minimum length requirements and other criteria of the NFA. And shotguns. That's what the anti-gun lobby is currently trying to take away.

This issue has nothing to do with machine guns, RPG's, or nuclear weapons...

[Renew Deal]

11. And we're off

:popcorn:

As the doors of the gungeon burst open. :nuke:

:rofl:

The best thing about gun posts is all these 1000+ posters that you never otherwise see. :hi:

[Mountainman]

12. The Democratic party is not against guns. They are against gun violence.

Many Dems feel the way to control gun violence is to control guns. Then many Dems like me do not support gun control above background checks and a waiting period and a assault weapons ban. I am a Dem and a gun owner.

[Renew Deal]

13. I support gun violence.

Give them all Uzi's.

[mestup]

23. Alito would give them Machine Guns!

:-)

[ManiacJoe]

68. We already have them, if you are willing

to pay the prices and the taxes; assuming your state gov allows them.

[Romulus]

42. see post #28

so-called "Assault weapon" = dressed-up "hunting rifle."

I couldn't say anything better than what is already in post #28 . . .

[benEzra]

54. Some thoughts from another gun owner...

Many Dems feel the way to control gun violence is to control guns.

The problem is, rummaging around in our family's gun safe and confiscating all the rifles with protruding handgrips (aka "assault weapons") isn't going to do a darn thing about criminal gun violence. My wife and I have never had so much as a speeding ticket, and the guns in our safe have never and likely will never contribute to gun violence at all.

The guns you should be worried about are the .38's and .357's tucked into your local criminals' waistbands and pockets, NOT the guns in the gun safes of the law-abiding. Yet it is the latter that the anti-gun lobby, and their allies in Congress, are after, not the former.

Then many Dems like me do not support gun control above background checks and a waiting period and a assault weapons ban. I am a Dem and a gun owner.

Background checks--I also support.

Waiting period--why, if you pass a background check, and already own other guns? There is no need for a waiting period to perform a background check; the main purpose seems to be to harass the law-abiding.

"Assault weapons"--what definition of "assault weapon" are you using? Civilian rifles with modern styling, and 9mm handguns like the one your local police officer carries on her hip? That's what the 1994 "assault weapons ban" affected...not military weapons...

If you are talking about military AK-47's and Uzi's and M16's, those are already very tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which has been on the books for 71 years now.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is THE main reason why the Democratic party is seen as anti-gun. It was aimed squarely at people like ME, i.e. law-abiding gun-owning nonhunters, not at criminal gun violence. Long guns of ANY appearance are rarely used in crimes...

[Bluzmann57]

14. Just one man's opinion here

I am a Democrat, lifelong, and I am not opposed to gun ownership. But what it may boil down to is where a person lives in the USA. See, I'm in Iowa, a relatively rural area, and a lot of people around here hunt and target shoot, including me. But people in NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other huge cities have little use for weapons except for self defense. It seems that very few big city people hunt or target shoot. Guns in big cities are often used in commission of crimes so therefore, some well meaning people probably wish to outlaw them. I'm sorry if any urbanites take offense to this. I certainly do not wish to lump all people together.

[Spinzonner]

15. WHy can't I have a howitzer

The Constitution says I have the right to bear arms and it doesn't say I can't have massive ordnance.

And don't get me started about my WMD collection ...

[mduffy31]

27. Did you get the anthrax in the designer blue container?

I did, it is cool.

[benEzra]

60. You can...you just have to pass a six-to-eight-month

WHy can't I have a howitzer

The Constitution says I have the right to bear arms and it doesn't say I can't have massive ordnance.

And don't get me started about my WMD collection ...

You can, LOL...you just have to pass a six-to-eight-month background check, similar in scope to getting a "Secret" level government security clearance, and the U.S. BATFE will interview your neighbors and everyone else who knows anything about you. Your local chief law enforcement officer has to sign off on your application, and the BATFE will inspect your home or the designated place of storage. You can then go to a specially licensed NFA Title 2/Class III dealer and shell out $16,500 (current price for a WW2-vintage 75mm Pack Howitzer), plus a $200 Destructive Device tax, for your howitzer, plus a tax of $200 per round. Meaning only the very rich with impeccable records can afford to own one.

Didn't you ever wonder where the howitzers used in WW2 movies come from? They're not owned by the government...


M1A1 75mm Pack Howitzer, $16,500 (with government clearance)


However, this has nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment refers to arms, not ordnance. The gun-control discussion is not about allowing unrestricted ownership of howitzers; it is about allowing my wife and I, who have never had so much as a speeding ticket, to continue to own and use the CIVILIAN SMALL-CALIBER FIREARMS SITTING IN OUR OWN GUN SAFE, and to pass them along to our children when they are of age. That is what the gun prohibitionist lobby is trying to take away from us...

[Rick Myers]

16. Malloy said it best: "I'm a liberal with a gun!"

:kick:

[jody]

17. Dem Party Platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right

to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

Recently, many Dem senators and representatives voted for S. 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, that said:
QUOTE
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
UNQUOTE

See DU thread Dem Senators & Reps voting for Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

[mtnsnake]

18. They ought to be...against leniency on handguns anyhow.

It's way too easy to get handguns in this country and the needless murders and deaths from handguns far outweigh any good that they do.

The majority of the American people really have no use for handguns, but Democrats have let themselves get their position on guns twisted all around by self-serving Republicans to make it sound like Democrats are against guns in general, when that simply is not the case.

[Fescue4u]

19. Because we enjoy losing election after election

Beyond that, nobody knows.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

20. It's just like how we're trying to convert straights to gays and telling

...young girls to have sex and get abortions.

We're not. ;)

[jody]

26. But we are pro-choice, that's a very personal, libertarian view and also

applies to arms such as firearms.

[iverglas]

73. yeah yeah

that's a very personal, libertarian view and also applies to arms such as firearms

The view that there should be no interference in people's exercise of their rights in ways that cannot in any way interfere in the exercise of anyone else's rights, e.g. in respect of whom they have consensual sex with and how, and whether or not they gestate pregnancies, sure does apply to the acquisition, possession and use of firearms.

Maybe it's that incipient cataract of mine, but I'm seeing some differences.

"Libertarian" ... the word that can be used to mean "advocating the autonomy of the individual in matters personal to that individual" ... or "demanding that I be permitted to do whatever I damned well want, and the devil take the rest of you."

Words can be such fun.

[B Calm]

22. Gun ownership, now that's a LIBERAL idea!

[mduffy31]

24. I am a member of the Democratic Party...

and I know that I am not against "useful" guns. What I mean by that is I like to hunt, now I have a hunting rifle, that is what I would call a useful gun. Now my biggest quarrel with the NRA is they are so strident when it comes to guns. Their position is all or nothing. I can not believe that a logical thinking person can really believe that a person needs to own a fully automatic weapon with armor piercing bullets to hunt deer? The only thing a weapon like that is for is hunting down terrorists in Tora Bora. Next I will never understand the aversion to license your gun. Why is that such a problem? You have to have a license for everything in this country. I had to get a license to get married. I am tired of the RW saying things like the citizens need those guns in case the government decides to become a dictatorship. Now who hear really thinks that could or would happen. Besides I think Maher said it best, the government has Abrams Tanks and Napalm, and if Janet Reno wants to come in, shes coming in. No I would love if all of us joined the NRA and tried to make some common sense changes, unfortunately I don't see it happening. We just have to hope that more stupid things that the NRA says the people will start to rise up and make them irrelevant.

:patriot: :dem:

[benEzra]

62. But what if (like most gun owners) you DON'T HUNT?

I am a member of the Democratic Party...and I know that I am not against "useful" guns. What I mean by that is I like to hunt, now I have a hunting rifle, that is what I would call a useful gun.

But what if you're one of the 80% of lawful gun owners who doesn't hunt? If you want to use that litmus test, hunting guns wouldn't be useful to most gun owners...

Our family's small-caliber rifles are a bit underpowered for hunting, but we find them quite useful for recreational target shooting and home defense. Does that mean you'll let my wife and I keep them? Or not, because we don't use our guns the way you use yours?

Now my biggest quarrel with the NRA is they are so strident when it comes to guns. Their position is all or nothing. I can not believe that a logical thinking person can really believe that a person needs to own a fully automatic weapon with armor piercing bullets to hunt deer?

The NRA does NOT oppose restrictions on automatic weapons. They were OK with the National Firearms Act when it was enacted and they are OK with it now. That law has been on the books for 71 years now. (You don't think the "assault weapons ban" affected automatic weapons, do you?)

ALL centerfire rifles are armor piercing. I don't know what caliber your hunting rifle is, but if it's suitable for deer, it will penetrate Level II or IIIA Kevlar body armor like it's Saran Wrap. Body armor is designed to stop handgun rounds only, not rifle rounds.

Are you aware that the NRA supports the National Firearms Act, most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the NCIS background check system, and helped write the 1986 ban on Kevlar-piercing handgun ammunition? "All or nothing" is a straw man argument...

The only thing a weapon like that is for is hunting down terrorists in Tora Bora.

They are pretty much restricted to military and police only by the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, which means discussions of automatic weapons are absolutely irrelevant to the gun control issue today.

Next I will never understand the aversion to license your gun. Why is that such a problem?

Perhaps because there are so many people who want to confiscate other people's guns, especially if those guns have black plastic stocks (which some of ours do)? And that there are so many instances in this country of licensing, once enacted, being used as a means to ban guns? Not to mention the sad example of the U.K., which enacted near-absolute gun prohibition via simply ratcheting up the licensing requirements until very few could get them...

My wife and I own a couple of rifles with protruding handgrips. The gun prohibitionist lobby has made banning rifles with protruding handgrips a top legislative priority. So there is no WAY I would support giving an administrative body the authority to take them at administrative whim simply by denying me a license...

FWIW, I have no problem, practically speaking, with getting a license to CARRY a firearm concealed on your person. Just like you don't need a license to own a car but you do need one to operate the car on public roads.

[michreject]

72. You have to have a license for everything in this country.

Maybe that's part of the problem. To many thing requiring a license. I don't think that the government needs to know everything that I buy. It's none of their business.

[creeker]

80. To many of us "full auto" is an investment--- and a "toy" to enjoy

[applegrove]

25. They are not. They just want them regulated so that crime cannot destroy

whole communities. The same as drivers of cars.

[Sgent]

28. People don't get the Assault Weapon's Ban

It was against guns.

The Democratic party (mostly) outlawed guns because they LOOKED different -- they had no difference in ballastics or any other function from your average hunting rifle.

Machine guns have been severely restricted (basically illegal) for decades. The AWB didn't even mention machine guns. It BANNED guns that are essentially dressed up hunting rifles.

The logical step is that all (most?) are against guns.

[rug]

29. I just keep guns to shoot Republicans.

[Gman]

30. I'm an originalist on the 2nd amendment

and we no longer have militias. Therefore, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.

[Silverhair]

46. Actually, we do have a militia.

By federal law, it is composed of all able bodied people of military age. If you like, I can google around and get the code number.

[sir pball]

49. 10USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 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.

linky

[slackmaster]

63. Distorted view of rights you have there

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of an individual citizen to keep and bear arms.

Now what's left that might have something to do with it?

Here:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Our system is based on people having the right to own, say, or do as they please except the finite set of things that have been proscribed by due process of law.

You have the right to come and go as you please.

You have the right to quit your job for "Bob".

You have the right to grow hybrid tea roses.

You have the right to own a gun.

HTH

[Mr_Spock]

31. Maybe the Dems should form their own gun ownership organization

...and push for a more reasonable approach to gun safety that the NRA - force them to compromise. We'll call it The Pragmatic Gun Owners of America.

[...of J.Temperance]

35. I did

Advocate this last week on that huge thread, that we form an alternative to the NRA and also that our Congressional Caucus form a gun caucus.

I think we're all sick and tired of the Repukes thinking that they own this issue.

[benEzra]

55. Check out Amendment 2 Democrats...

http://www.a2dems.net/

[Trajan]

32. Democrats arent 'against guns' ...

They are FOR reasonable rules regarding their ownership and usage ....

Democrats being 'Against Guns' is a bullshit meme planted by the right wing, and echoed here and now on this thread ....

[benEzra]

51. Most Dems aren't...

but when party leaders get suckered into supporting gun-banning legislation like S.1431 last year (banning self-loading rifles based on how the stock is shaped, and banning all magazines over 10 rounds), it makes the party as a whole look very anti-gun indeed. And that doesn't even touch the whole "Kevlar piercing" hoohah that someone slipped over on Senator Kennedy last year.

There is a perception that the Democratic party supports only the right to own hunting guns, skeet guns, and other traditional-looking guns. A few gun-404 urbanites are doing their best to reinforce that perception by constantly trying to ban everything else, and THAT is the problem as I see it.

[Punkingal]

34. They aren't against guns.

My son is a Democrat, and he owns about 200 guns...he is a collector, as well as a gunsmith and a hunter. He has enough sense to see through the Republican propoganda about guns.

[aikoaiko]

36. I'll say it: Some in our party try to ban guns from civilian ownership.

Hopefully, if we stop proposing stupid gun banning laws we will begin to lose the image that we are against guns. But that would be just a start -- a good start though.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

38. I havn't owned a gun since I was 12

I just bought a shotgun and am about to buy a handgun because I am afraid of my government. We used to live in a society where you could depend on state and local government to keep the peace and protect the populous. After watching the Bush response to natural disaster, I no longer have any confidence in "government". Your survival is up to you. I intend to do what I can to assure the survival of me and mine. If this means shooting, so be it!

In my 55 years on this planet, I have never before felt the need to own a gun. What a sad day!

I just ordered a bumper sticker that says "You can have my civil rights when you pry them out of my cold, dead, hands" and that's the way I feel. If I have to die fighting the BushNazi's, I am willing.

As to what guns you can own, this socialist says we may have an entire government to fight. There should be NO restrictions.

[iverglas]

39. Just when did you stop beating your dog?

Yeesh.

Evidently the Democratic Party is against cars, given that (I would assume) it supports speed limits, requirements that cars be equipped with brakes and seatbelts, requirements that people who drive cars in public be licensed and that cars driven in public be registered, prohibitions on people who violate highway traffic laws obtaining licenses and driving cars, prohibitions on driving for persons who are unsuitable candidates for driving by reason of age or disability, requirements that cars driven in public be insured, rules regarding where cars may and may not be driven, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now, why don't we hear the auto industry (and all those blue collar workers whose jobs are obviously threatened, and rural folk whose access to employment and ability to go shopping is obviously at risk) bitching and whining about how anti-car the Democratic Party is? ... and someone at DU joining in every couple of days ...

[benEzra]

52. If the party at large started advocating a ban on

all cars that can exceed 100 km/h, all cars with shiny wheels, and all cars with rear wings/spoilers, on grounds that such cars have "no legitimate transportation purpose," are the "cars of choice of terrorists and bank robbers," and "enable criminals to out-run police," you can bet the party would be tagged as "anti-car." And I daresay the American Automobile Association would start opposing candidates supporting said legislation.

And the day that NHTSA starts pushing 100-km/h speed limiters, mandatory DayGlo orange paint, 10-gallon fuel capacity limits, mandatory 5-minute start delays, and built-in breathalyzers for all cars under the guise of "safety," then you'll definitely see a push to take that authority away from NHTSA. Just like the authority to regulate guns was taken away from the U.S. CPSC in the 1970's, for similar reasons.

[HEyHEY]

40. Just cause it's cultural doesn't make it a good thing

[baltlib]

47. if you listen to republicans

an unarmed man is a servant, an armed man is a citizen

[iverglas]

48. and every woman

is an incubator.

But then ... who listens to Republicans?

[Lefty48197]

75. Why do some people believe that the Democratic Party is against guns?

?

[virginia mountainman]

76. Preparation H

In San Francisco..

Will go far to line the NRA's War chest.

even AFTER it is struck down in court, We GAVE them the proof they wanted.

[Paladin]

77. Having So Many RKBA "Democrats".......

...who are publicly willing to say the party is against guns, over and over again, doesn't help much.....

[virginia mountainman]

78. Having so many...

.....Pro-RKBA willing to publicly say it, SHOULD BE a warning to the party.

[Paladin]

79. I Got Your Warning

The fact of the matter is, no matter how pro-gun the Democratic Party is, it will never, ever be enough for you and the rest of the RKBA extremists who have set up shop here in the Gungeon. You people trashed Gore, you trashed Kerry, and you'll trash the 2008 nominee as well. Trying to satisfy you is an exercise in futility.....

[jody]

81. How can we be "RKBA extremists" if the Dem party platform agrees with us?

I suggest it is the gun-grabbers that are extremists.

Clinton and Gore both agree that gun-grabbers have cost Dems many votes in the last two presidential elections.

The first step is for gun-grabbers to publicly admit that they represent a minority view in the Democratic Party and they are out of step with mainstream voters in the U.S. I seriously doubt they have the integrity and courage to take that step.

[iverglas]

82. maybe if jody would name one

of those gun-grabbers whom he wants to publicly admit that they represent a minority view in the Democratic Party, we could all go bang on his/her door and demand satisfaction.

Meanwhile, if jody is pretending that a majority of the Democratic Party opposes mainstream firearms control positions, then he'd really better come up with some evidence that shows his statement to be something more than a, well, pretence.

Or maybe jody will admit that he's been beating his dog.

[benEzra]

85. S.1431 and S.A. 2619 to S.B.1805, last session...

were two of the MAJOR factors behind that perception in 2004...see thomas.loc.gov for details (I'd link you there but I think they use per-session links). Ignore the summaries and read the text of the bills, and think about the implications. Party leaders' sometimes-gullibility on gun issues, and the fact that (in the past) the majority often stood silent while the Feinstein/Schumer/McCarthy wing demonized nonhunting guns and gun owners on national TV, haven't helped...

Since the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, we've had the .500 S&W revolver hysteria, the .50 target rifle hysteria, the FN FiveSeven hysteria, a good bit of anti-CCW-licensing hysteria--little if any factually based, but all contributing to the perception. It seems that as soon as the prohibitionist lobby assigns a Scary Name to something, Feinstein et al introduce legislation to ban it while grabbing all the camera time they can, thereby presenting the message that "all your nonhunting guns are belong to us"...

[derby378]

84. Would it be fair to say...

...that the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK influenced the creation of the nascent gun-control movement in America in the mid-to-late 60s?

Just throwing it on the table...

[benEzra]

86. They certainly contributed to the adoption of

the Gun Control Act of 1968...which the U.S. gun industry also supported (due to its trade protectionist aspects), and gun owners and the NRA were mostly indifferent to. There are aspects of GCA '68 that directly respond to the Kennedy assassination, for example (e.g., outlawing mail-order firearms commerce, and outlawing possession of a firearm by someone dishonorably discharged from the military).

The "take guns away from the law-abiding" movement seems to have gotten rolling some years later, though, in the 1970, with the rise of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, Handgun Control Inc. (now the Brady Campaign), the adoption of D.C.'s handgun ban in '76, and such. So I don't think the '60's political assassinations had much to do with it, personally.

Gun prohibition really took off nationally in the late '80s/early '90s with the brief ascendancy of the communitarians in national politics, since gun prohibition was one of the Holy Grails of the communitarian platform.

At least that's my take on it. Anything pre-late-'80s was before my time, though...

[Zynx]

87. Because some mistakenly believed Sarah Brady represented a major position

In reality, expanding gun control is massively unpopular on a national level and is about as viable for a national political party as is pushing the 4004 BC Creation date.

Both are believed in by 10-15% of the population.

[Wickerman]

90. locking

kicked ancient thread that is coverd by any one of several others still on top of the screen.