The conservative roots of U.S. gun control...

[benEzra]

I heard last week from a fellow DU'er who argued that supporting the lawful ownership of guns (especially nonhunting guns) by civilians is somehow a "conservative" position, and that advocating bans on said ownership is a "progressive" position.

I have pointed out elsewhere that the ban-more-guns crusade of the late '80s/early '90s was a DLC thing, an attempt to pander to right-leaning law-and-order types by posturing as "tough on crime," and heavily influenced by "third way" Communitarian thought, which is IMHO reactionary rather than progressive. And, of course, the original "assault weapons ban" at the Federal level, enacted by a Bush-the-Elder XO and later codified into 18 USC 922(r), was reportedly the brainchild of arch-right-winger William J. Bennett at the direction of George H.W. Bush (who was clueless about Federal firearms law, as that link demonstrates).

But this morning, I ran across a couple of interesting articles highlighting the fact that the ban-nonhunting-guns movement originated as a conservative movement, pushed by the same right-wing moralists that foisted Prohibition and the Harrison Act on the nation, and the original opposition thereto came mostly from the left. H.L. Mencken (no friend of the Right) famously skewered the self-righteous "Uplifters," as he called them, in many of his essays, including this one:

The Uplifters are At It Again (Baltimore Sun, 1925)

...

But the gunmen, I take it, would not suffer from the high cost of artillery for long. The moment the price got really attractive, the cops themselves would begin to sell their pistols, and with them the whole corps of Prohibition blacklegs, private detectives, deputy sheriffs and other such scoundrels. And smuggling, as in the case of alcoholic beverages, would become an organized industry, large in scale and lordly in profits. Imagine the supplies that would pour over the long Canadian and Mexican borders! And into every port on every incoming ship!

Certainly, the history of the attempt to enforce Prohibition should give even uplifters pause. A case of whisky is a bulky object. It must be transported on a truck. It cannot be disguised. Yet in every American city today a case of whisky may be bought almost as readily as a pair of shoes despite all the armed guards along the Canadian border, and all the guard ships off the ports, and all the raiding, snooping and murdering everywhere else. Thus the camel gets in and yet the proponents of the new anti-pistol law tell us that they will catch the gnat! Go whisper it to the Marines!

Such a law, indeed, would simply make gun-toting swagger and fashionable, as Prohibition has made guzzling swagger and fashionable. When I was a youngster there were no Prohibition agents; hence I never so much as drank a glass of beer until I was nearly 19. Today, Law Enforcement is the eighth sacrament and the Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals by itself authority for the sad news that the young of the land are full of gin. I remember, in my youth, a time when the cops tried to prohibit the game of catty. At once every boy in Baltimore consecrated his whole time and energy to it. Finally, the cops gave up their crusade. Almost instantly catty disappeared.

The real victim of moral legislation is always the honest, law-abiding, well-meaning citizen --what the late William Graham Sumner called the Forgotten Man. Prohibition makes it impossible for him to take a harmless drink, cheaply and in a decent manner. In the same way, the Harrison Act (1916) puts heavy burdens upon the physician who has need of prescribing narcotic drugs for a patient, honestly and for good ends. But the drunkard still gets all the alcohol that he can hold, and the drug addict is still full of morphine and cocaine. By precisely the same route the Nation's new law would deprive the reputable citizen of the arms he needs for protection, and hand them over to the rogues that he needs protection against.

(Disclaimer--I don't know much about the site hosting that page, but the server I wanted to link to is apparently down.)


But the most interesting thing to me was the reasoning that eventually culminated in New York's Sullivan Law (proposed by, and named after, the famous Tammany Hall crook "Big Tim" Sullivan), the original you-can't-own-a-handgun-unless-the-power-brokers-like-you law:

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/news-articles.htm

CONCEALED PISTOLS

Editorial, New York Times, January, 27, 1905

Among the best british traditions perpetuated and cherished in America is that of using natures weapons in the act of self-defense. That it is sincerely cherished is shown in the recent introduction at Albany of a bill by Assemblyman Tompkins to amend the Penal Code of this State relative to the carrying of loaded firearms concealed about the person. The amending section reads as follows:

Sec. 411-A Any person other than a peace officer who shall in any public street, highway or place in any city in this State having a population of upward of 100,000 persons by the last State census have or carry concealed upon his person any loaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm, without thereto fore, in the manner now provided by law, having been authorized to carry the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Such a measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community. The case of a Columbia student who flourished and fired a pistol at his persecutors instead of using his "bare fist", as his presumably British-American descent would prescribe, is fresh in the public memory. The act now proposed and championed by Mr. Tompkins will diminish the number of homicides.

New York Times, March 15, 1905

Special to to The New York Times.

Albany. March 14.- The Armstrong bill prohibiting foreigners from carrying firearms under any circumstances unless specially licensed by local authorities passed the Assembly to-day. Arms of any description may not be sold to minors under sixteen years of age, according to bill's provisions.

The infamous Sullivan Bill passed the NYS Senate on 10 MAY 1911 and the NYS Assembly on 15 MAY 1911 and was signed into New York State law 29 MAY 1911.

STRICTER WEAPONS LAW

Dix Signs Bill Compelling Licenses and Registry of All Sales

Special to The New York Times

May 30, 1911. pg. 1, 1 pgs

ALBANY, May 29.-Gov. Dix to-night signed Senator Timothy D. Sullivan’s bill making it unlawful to carry a revolver or any other firearm that may be concealed upon the person without a written license. The provisions of the law will take effect on Sept. 1. Licenses for carrying small firearms are to be issued by Police Magistrates in cities and Justices of the Peace in rural districts.
The new law provides that dealers shall keep a register in which shall be entered the time of the sale, name, age, occupation, and residence of every purchaser of a revolver. Before the sale is made the purchaser must be required to show a permit for possessing or carrying the weapon.
The carrying of or attempt to use a blackjack, bludgeon, or sandbag and the carrying of a razor, stiletto, or any other dangerous instrument or weapon is made a felony by the new law. The carrying of firearms or dangerous weapons by persons not citizen of the United States is also declared to be a felony.

New York Times, Sep 3, 1911. pg. 06

QUEER ARREST MADE UNDER NEW GUN LAW

Young Man Arriving from South with a Weapon in a Case Taken In and Held Without Bail.

PAWNBROKERS PROTEST

Insist That They Must Restore Pledges When Called For—Magistrate Finds Himself at Sea.

More confusion resulted yesterday form the enforcement of the new Sullivan Anti-Weapon law, which makes it a misdemeanor for any one to have in his possession without a permit, a pistol, revolver, blackjack, or bludgeon, and a felony for any one to have such a weapon concealed upon his person. A peculiarly puzzling case was presented to Magistrate O’Connnor in the arrest of a young Italian a few minutes after his arrival in the city from the South,, on his way to Italy. The young man was carrying a shotgun in a case as a present for his brother in Italy, when he was arrested under the provision of the Sullivan law making it a felony for a person of foreign birth to carry a dangerous weapon. Despite his appreciation of the young man's ill luck, Magistrate O’Connor felt that under the law he must hold im for the Grand Jury without bail.

Xenophobia and elitism. In the South, the elitism was mostly based on racism:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-reg.html

...in case anyone was wondering why the South had some of the most onerous gun-control laws in the nation outside of NY, DC, and Chicago until very recently.

Here in NC, it is still a legal requirement that anyone wanting to purchase a handgun must appear at the local sheriff's office, in person, and receive authorization from the (usually white) Sheriff, and the criteria are somewhat discretionary, though less now than they used to be. That provision reportedly originated during the Jim Crow era, as a way to deter nonwhites from purchasing handguns. I can vouch for the fact that it is an intimidating process--and I am a middle-class, college-educated, bespectacled white guy whose dad used to babysit our local sheriff when said sheriff was a toddler in diapers. Imagine going through that process in 1955, as a man or woman of color...which was, of course, the point.


Now, lest anyone misunderstand me, I am not arguing the genetic fallacy here, i.e. that restrictions on the lawful ownership/use of firearms are bad because some such restrictions had racist origins. I do support background checks for purchase, and am OK with the requirement to obtain a license in order to carry a firearm on your person. I am merely speaking to the fallacy that restrictions on lawful and responsible gun ownership are somehow by nature "progressive," and its twin fallacy that opposing capricious restrictions is somehow by nature "conservative."

History shows that conservative elitism and xenophobia are 100% compatible with disarming the peons, as long as the elites and power brokers get to keep their armed bodyguards.

Contrast that with the view of a famous Democratic life member of the NRA:

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

-Senator John F. Kennedy, April 1960


"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-John F. Kennedy

Agree or disagree with it, but gun ownership is NOT intrinsically a right-wing issue, and those who try to frame it as such are IMHO trying to win the debate without debating the issue itself.

[krispos42]

1. Excellent post

I have often wondered, if someone did the research, what percentage of black and Latino people live in very strict gun-control regions as compared to whites. I have a feeling it would be much higher for blacks and Latinos, which would mean that, overall, whites had more access to more types and numbers of guns, with fewer restrictions and limitations.

[virginia mountainman]

2. Hear Hear!!

:applause:

[Solo_in_MD]

3. Gun control has strong racist roots

[iverglas]

72. he fought the good fight

And presumably died with his boots on.

[robinlynne]

4. Please. how about a tiny bit of common sense?

[virginia mountainman]

8. Yes, after all...

We Dems take pride in our "Pro-Choice" stances..

[benEzra]

9. I'm all for common sense...

particularly as opposed to irrational legislation based on moral panics and fearmongering. I am not opposed to all restrictions, nor am I opposed to restrictions on criminal misuse.

FWIW, more on the gun issue as it stood after 2004 can be found in this link:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

After the '04 losses, the party leadership finally pretty much ditched the DLC's ban-more-guns crusade, and IMHO that was a big part of the '06 retake of the Senate and House.

[joshcryer]

62. I think the poster is using common sense.

Feel free to use your common sense to substantiate or clarify your comments.

[Kolesar]

5. "Get the government off my back" is a RW message

Eighty-year-old citations notwithstanding.

Any Democrat who thinks he is going to build a campaign around making guns more available at any rate in any community is a fool.

[piedmont]

6. It's actually a libertarian message

That's "libertarian" with a small "l." In a recent poll that I recall, most DUers identified as left-leaning libertarians after taking this quiz:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

[Kolesar]

7. Yes. It is a libertarian message...

...one that our opponents apply with great effect.

[piedmont]

11. As do we.

Freedom of speech, privacy protection, freedom to assemble, habeas corpus are all libertarian ideals. When we say the government shouldn't have a say in what a woman does with her body, how is that different from "get the government off our backs?" For that matter, when we advocate the abolition of anti-homosexual laws that's almost exactly what we say-- "get the government out of our bedrooms."

[benEzra]

12. And the way to DEFUSE the gun issue...

is, of course, to NOT try to outlaw popular civilian firearms, and let people make decisions based on issues that you say (but apparently do not believe?) are more important.

Criticism of the Patriot Act, and of this administration's repeated violations of the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, are also "libertarian" positions, in the generic civil-liberties sense. They are also genuinely progressive positions, and opposition thereto is reactionary, not progressive.

[SteveM]

74. Which may explain why most DUers probably own guns (nt)

[benEzra]

10. No one is talking about making guns more available...

Any Democrat who thinks he is going to build a campaign around making guns more available at any rate in any community is a fool.

No one is talking about making guns more available. What I am advocating is not slapping additional, pointless restrictions on the right of law-abiding adults with clean records to own and use NON-automatic firearms under .51 caliber that meet all the criteria of ordinary NFA Title 1 civilian firearms, like have been on the civilian market for the last 40 to 140 years.

And FWIW, any Democrat who thinks he/she is going to build a campaign around hassling responsible, law-abiding gun owners or trying to dictate their aesthetic choices is also a fool. 40% of households own guns, 80% of their owners are nonhunters, and half or more of gunnies are NOT repubs. So the gun-rights-for-hunters-only mantra that the DLC pushed for a decade is a guaranteed loser.

IMHO, the Jim Webb win shows what taking a pro-choice position on gun ownership DOES do. It takes the gun issue off the table so that the race can be decided on non-wedge issues that most people (particularly non-gun-owners) say are more important. Consider the fact that Jim Webb beat George Macacawitz Allen in a heavily gun-owning state. This wasn't California or Massachusetts, but rather Virginia.

"Get the government off my back" is a RW message.

Eighty-year-old citations notwithstanding.

Prohibition is a RW message. Respect for individual choice, on the other hand, is an Enlightenment philosophy that underlies a great deal of progressive thinking. Or do you believe with Jerry Falwell that the proper role of the State is to make people's private decisions for them?

BTW, are you citing Reagan? Sarah Brady is a Reagan Republican and proud of it, but you knew that, right?

[Kolesar]

15. You proudly cited that Ohio Gov Strickland, D, would have forced guns into Cleveland

and other cities that had bans that went beyond state and federal law.

[virginia mountainman]

16. Do the people's civil rights stop at City boundaries?

I would NOT argue that they do.

BTW, the guns are already in Cleavland...why restrict the LAW-abidings access to them unessecarily?

[Kolesar]

17. the government took away Cleveland's right to regulate a safety issue in their community

Even the middling, conservative newspapers in Ohio editorialized against the issue, which was overturning Gov Taft's veto.

[virginia mountainman]

20. Still don't change the fact..

That people are having their rights infringed, and democrats "seem to be" eager to do it.

We are "pro choice" on so many things, but not on the 2nd Amendment.

That just don't "jive"

EDIT, and I can PROMISE you that voters around the US will notice it...When I am stumping for a potential Dem candidate, I don't want to have to defend the "they want to take our guns away" mantra.

That is hard to do when they point at Cities like Cleveland, and the Illinois AW ban, that give people 30 days to hand them in. The NEW Federal AW Ban, and the like.

[krispos42]

21. So should Cleveland have the right to issue stricter DL requirements?

How about stricter emissions for their cars in the Cleveland area?

How about if Cleveland decided that, in order to save the environment, they ban all vehicles in city limits that get less than 25 miles per gallon in city driving?

[Kolesar]

22. Weapons restrictions in the cities are the best law we can get

...in a country where provincial and somewhat racist rural people use their political power to prevent weapons control across an entire state or an entire country.

[virginia mountainman]

24. Isn't, using political power to keep the law abiding unarmed ....

..in URBAN environments, the same urban environments that are heavily populated by African-American, IS THAT THE INTENT, TOO KEEP THEM DISARMED, in the face of violence?

Are you proposing the mass-disarmament of African Americans in the face of "Racist rural people"

While the "racist rural people" are allowed to own what ever they wish??

That what it sounds like you want.

Think about it. Just WHO do you think the City mayors are trying to disarm? The criminals, whom by definition BREAK laws?? Or the law abiding whom follow them??

I say level the playing field, let the law abiding own what the own now.....LET EVERYONE be equal. Especially since it is obvious the Police cannot protect us.

[Kolesar]

26. So you are preferring a country like the Philipines, where everyone is armed...

...if and when they go out and about. Else they risk death or mayhem

[virginia mountainman]

28. America is NOT, like the Philippines.

All I propose, it too allow the innocent, the ability to protect themselves. The same ability you wish to keep from them.

I refuse to to fight and WASTE political resources to keep them helpless.

We Democrats pride ourselves on our "Pro Choice" stances, I am for ALL the Bill of Rights, not just the ones I like.

[dairydog91]

31. It's not a question of preferance.

America's inner cities will remain violent and nasty until some drastic changes take place. Until then, they will be violent regardless of whether guns are banned from legal ownership.

[hydrashok75]

42. The rural vs. urban take on gun control...

...is EXPLICITLY racist, frankly. The idea that gun control is needed as a tool to control urban folk is racist bunk, the idea that "you yokels in Montana can have guns but we need to keep those urban (read: minorities) folks disarmed" is clearly bigoted garbage.

Urban folk like me need guns more than anyone.

[iverglas]

71. I see it's time for another stroll down memory lane

So sad to see him go, I was.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dalus]

79. Philippines does not have right to bear arms

I've been to the Philippines several times. A permit is required to legally own a gun there. Such permits are difficult to obtain. I understand most firearms are actually held illegally there because of the difficulty in getting the permit. Going armed in public is NOT the norm -- at least not in Manila or in the provinces I have visited. Perhaps it's more normal in Mindanao, which, for those here that might not know already, has had a civil war going on for the past few decades.

The USA is quite different from the Philippines, of course. Generally speaking, police here do their jobs and do not bend to payment or social/political pressure. Not so over there. In short, we have far more rule of law than they do in the Philippines, and THAT is the reason for the "wild west" feel that the country has, not widespread firearms ownership.

We already have way more guns in the USA than they do in the Philippines, in fact. After all, they're legal here, and we can afford them much more easily.

[SteveM]

25. Local laws can't violate 14A, the basis for modern civil rights.

One of the chief motivations for passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was to prevent state militias, the KKK and state/local law in Reconstruction South from disarming black citizens. As you know, the Fourteenth is fundamental to the pro-civil rights rulings during the last half of the 20th century. In short, the rights guaranteed U.S. citizens cannot be abrogated by state/localities.

[krispos42]

40. You are not stating the purpose of weapons control

You argument seems to be that we need gun control because we need gun control.

[spin]

84. Newspapers, liberal or conservative , rarely

are in favor of citizens owning guns or legally carrying them concealed.

For example the St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune are the two main newspapers in the Tampa Bay area. I remember that both newspapers opposed the law allowing licensed citizens to carry weapons concealed in Florida.

The St. Petersburg Times is shown featuring more progressives than conservatives, with 43 percent of columnists considered progressive and 29 percent considered conservative. Just three other newspapers in the state featured more progressive voices than conservative: The Palm Beach Post, the Ocala Star Banner and the New Smyrna Beach Observer.

According to their study, 80 percent of op-ed columnists featured by the Tampa Tribune are conservative -- only the Winter Haven News Chief, the Villages Daily Sun and the Fort Walton Beach Northwest Florida Daily News had highest percentages of conservative columnists. Only one newspaper among Florida's 38 daily newspapers, the Gainesville Sun, declined to reveal information to the site's researchers or offered no way to track their use of columnists from Washington D.C.
http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/2007/09/media-matters-s.html

So how did the Tampa Tribune feel about the recent law that would allow employees with concealed carry permits to leave their firearms in their car in the company parking lot?

Columnist Daniel Ruth at the Tampa Tribune had it right when he wrote a column last month condeming the proposed legislation in Florida that would allow employees to bring weapons to work, regardless of their employer's policies.

To be sure, in a perfect world where there was no workplace violence, where some employees weren't more unhinged than Son of Sam meets Lex Luthor, it would be fine if people drove into the company parking lot with their NRA-approved death ray, or their surface-to-air missile, or their Gatling Gun in the trunk. Who would care?

However, if the private sector can regulate other forms of employee behavior, such as smoking in the workplace, why can't employers also establish rules governing the presence of lethal weapons on private property?

There's no question the Florida Legislature, a subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, will pass Baxley's Fortune 500 meets "Six Feet Under" bill.

One question for Baxley, who does happen to have a conflict of interest in his legislation since he is an Ocala funeral director:

If as a result of the representative's legislative actions an act of workplace violence leads to the murders of workers, would Dennis Baxley also be willing to create a NRA-funded compensation account for the surviving families?
http://www.gunguys.com/?m=200510

[benEzra]

19. Strickland merely blocked attempts to make decades-legal guns illegal...

You proudly cited that Ohio Gov Strickland, D, would have forced guns into Cleveland and other cities that had bans that went beyond state and federal law.

Strickland merely blocked very recent attempts to make decades-legal civilian guns illegal, which is hardly "making guns more available" than they already were. Nor was it a safety issue, since rifles are not a crime problem in Ohio per the FBI and never have been.

By the way, did Strickland, running on a strong pro-choice message on individual gun ownership, win, or did he lose? He won, didn't he? And his predecessor was an elitist gun-owner-bashing repub, which sort of backs up my point in the OP, no?

Since you object to the state of Ohio ix-naying the Cleveland rifle handgrip ban on home-rule grounds, did you likewise oppose the 1994 AWB, which took away the choice from the dozens of states that had already considered and rejected similar bans? Or, would you support an Ohio town exempting itself from state and Federal restrictions on civilian possession of machineguns, if Cleveland were also allowed to ban rifle handgrips that stick out? How would you respond to speech and press bans, abortion restrictions, etc. that go beyond Federal and state law?

Personally, I don't have a horse in the Ohio race, though I must confess I am glad to see Cleveland's silly handgrip ban kicked to the curb. What does affect me very directly is the attempt to shove a Cleveland-style ban down my throat at the Federal level, a la S.1431/H.R.2038 in 2004, or H.R.1022 right now. What goes on in Ohio is your business, but please stay the hell out of my gun safe in NC. Live and let live, and all that...

[WWFZD]

67. I proudly voted for Strickland

And were he a gungrabber I would not have voted for him. He supported getting rid of the AWB in Columbus and establishing uniform CCW laws throughout the state. Good job Guv, I'll vote for you again.

[one-eyed fat man]

78. us old geezers remember............

The National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice (NBPRP), an advisory board to the Secretary of the Army was created in 1903, with the urging of President Roosevelt. From 1916 until 1996 the Civilian Marksmanship Program was administered by the U.S. Army until the program was disestablished Clinton Administration. The national emphasis on target practice, especially after World War 1, was such that all of the public high schools built in Cleveland after the Armistice had indoor rifle ranges built in them. This practice continued up through the Korean War.

Schools had rifle and pistol teams. I shot on the Collinwood High School team. I would take my rifle on the city bus (it was an electric trolley bus, by the way.The streetcars were just going out of service.) to attend matches. Back then every able-bodied man you knew or met was a veteran, and occasionally some gentleman on the bus would tell me thay used the same make and model rifle somewhere during their time in the service. Guns were an unremarkable part of ordinary life.

Once the city passed all its gun bans, criminals were unfettered and easily achieved the current levels of lawlessness.

[krispos42]

13. "Get the government off my back" is a bipartisan message

Each side just has a different part of the back they want the government to get off of.

It is not about making the quantities of guns available greater, it is about making the variety of guns available greater.

[benEzra]

14. Actually, I'd argue...

that we're fighting to preserve the variety we have, and have had for decades. The anti's, on the other hand, are fighting to take that variety back to where it stood around 1895-1915 or so. Definitely pre-1945.

[SteveM]

23. The contrived "RW message" is too stale to be stigma.

Please read Ben's excellent post again. The campaign you need to concern yourself with is how Democratic candidates are going to be viewed after their respective gun-control records are revealed -- by the "RW." In the mean time, if you want more up-to-date stuff, consider this from conservative arch-prohibitionist Charles Krauthammer, from "Disarm the Citizenry," Washington Post, April 5, 1996: "...The assault weapon ban is a purely symbolic move real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." I read Orwell and Machiavelli as warnings; Krauthammer read them as operators' manuals.

[Kolesar]

27. None of the last four national elections turned on the weapons issue

[virginia mountainman]

29. Yea, please pass over some of what your smoking

I have personally seen DOZENS of people turn because of the gun issue. DOZENS....

Matter of fact, most of my family did. And I come from a family that was very active in union organizing, and the democratic party until the mid 1990's

Matter of FACT, my mother and father, where interviewed on NATIONAL TV several times. MATER OF FACT. my mother was a delegate to the democratic national convention back in the 1980's

The support in the community virtually disappeared when prominent democrats started holding up guns, that was exactly like some in our gun cabinets on TV, and using statements like "Mr and Mrs America, turn them ALL in"

Yea, I remember 1994 vividly.

I am the ONLY Liberal left in my immediate family now, INCLUDING BOTH PARENTS.....

[benEzra]

30. It is generally accepted that the 1994 Feinstein ban cost the House and Senate

None of the last four national elections turned on the weapons issue

It is generally accepted that the 1994 Feinstein ban cost the House and Senate in Nov. 1994. President Clinton himself estimated that ban alone cost 20 Dem House seats, including that of the House Speaker himself. Gun owners continued to make gains, independent of the Dem/Repub breakdown, through 2004, when the DLC finally dropped the issue from the national stage.

Gore lost TN and WV in '00 on the gun issue, and had he won those states, he'd have won the Presidency without Florida. And Florida wouldn't have even been close enough for a recount had he not run on a ban-more-guns message; they don't call it the "Gunshine State" for nothing.

The gun issue hurt Kerry/Edwards badly in '04, but it's an open question whether they would have won were it not for that issue. But both of them abandoning the campaign trail on freaking Super Tuesday to go vote for what would have been the most sweeping gun ban in U.S. history (S.1431) definitely didn't help them any among the 40% of U.S. households that own guns.

And I think a VERY strong case can be made that the Senate would not have been won in '06 had the party uttered a peep nationally about a ban-more-guns agenda, or if Webb and others had not run on a strong pro-choice position on the issue. Webb reached out to make gun owners feel safe voting for him, and a heck of a lot of them did.

Our pro-gun Dem governor won my state (NC) 55/45% in '04, while Kerry/Edwards simultaneously lost the state 45/55%, running on a ban-more-guns message. The gun issue may not have been 100% to blame for that difference, but it was definitely in play.

Look, ~80 million Americans own guns, and most are nonhunters. You may not like that, but it is reality, and we are going to keep them. You can accept that fact and let elections be decided on other issues, or you can keep handing the repubs the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme to beat up candidates with in pro-gun jurisdictions. Your choice.

[SteveM]

33. Even Bill Clinton said gun control cost Gore the election.

Gun owners have every right to fear that much of the leadership of the Democratic Party was (and quite possibly is) in favor of banning nearly ALL guns. What amazes me is the current dynamic of this debate: sound data and logic characterize Second Amendment scholarship, even in this forum. Yet, the "antis" continue the shrill, ad homonym attacks of yesteryear. This can only be characterized as culture war, founded on a deep-seated hatred of millions of fellow Americans. It's almost as if "liberals," so imbued with intellectual honesty, rational thought and the aura of academia have found their warm place to shit: I can yee-HAH and yell the "N word" (NRA?) at my opponents anytime I want; who needs to think (and such a relief). What is more disturbing is the attitude of gun banning (shattered and stripped though it may be) is STILL in place within the Democratic Party, and that whiff of prohibitionism is once again beginning to smell up this forum and the debate at large. And it IS prohibitionism. Feinstein is an arch-"prohi" (a term given these folks by Marjorie Rawlings in her 1933 novel South Moon Under) who has the same livid hatred of marijuana users. No wonder she shelved her plans to run for office. Who wants someone in power who hates millions of others and wishes to put them in jail?

[Kolesar]

34. Some documentation would be a nice thing

And, psst, "culture war" is RW messaging, too! ;)

[virginia mountainman]

36. No need to document it...

When most in here WATCHED IT HAPPEN...LIVE and in person.

[Kolesar]

37. You just capitulated

Actually I cannot say for sure what I was asking SteveM to document in that rambling, disconnected post, but if you are content to end the discussion rather than try to defend his accusations of "ad hominem" attacks &such, then I don't blame you.

[virginia mountainman]

43. No...

I am not doing your homework for you...

[Kolesar]

45. Who is the "most in here" you refer to in post 36? eom

[benEzra]

48. From President Clinton's autobiography:

EXCERPTS FROM "MY LIFE" BY BILL CLINTON:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already . . . defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing. . . . Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners. . . . Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price . . . would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)


"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946. . . . The NRA had a great night. They beat both
Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage . . ." (Pages 629-630)


"After the election I had to face the fact that . . . supporters of responsible gun legislation . . . simply could not protect their friends in Congress from the NRA. The gun lobby outspent, outorganized,
outfought, and outdemagogued them." (Page 630)


"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressmen, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban.
Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)


"I had grown up in the hunting culture in which its influence was greatest and had seen the devastating impact the NRA had had on the '94 congressional elections." (Page 898)

And on the 2000 election:

Interview of the President by Dan Rather of CBS News

12/19/2000

U.S. Newswire

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is the text of an interview of the President by Dan Rather of CBS News

The Oval Office

December 18, 2000 4:28 P.M. EST





Q Do you agree or disagree that some of your failures -- policy as well as personal failures in the White House -- had an impact on Al Gore's losing?



THE PRESIDENT:



I don't think there is -- I don't know if you'd call this a policy failure, but I don't think there's any doubt that, in at least five states I can think of, the NRA had a decisive influence because they disagreed with our attempts to close the gun show loophole and have child trigger locks, safety locks and ban large scale ammunition clips.



You know, presumably, some people voted for him because we were for those things. But one of the sad things about all gun safety legislation is that people tend to vote for the issues, but when they're voting for candidates the antis" tend to be more intense than the "pros." I mean, if you look at Colorado, which is basically a Republican state now, the Vice President lost there, but closing the gun show loophole passed 70-30. In Oregon, because of the Nader candidacy, he only won a narrow victory, but the gun show loophole closing carried 2-1.







Q. I want to read you off a list and ask you to tell me the first thing that comes into your mind.



The National Rifle Association.



THE PRESIDENT: An effective adversary, but I think, on balance, a negative force, because they're trying to convince their people that we're trying to do something we're not trying to do.



Q Which is?

THE PRESIDENT: Take everybody's guns away. That's why I like giving speeches in debate with them, because I always tell everybody I talk to, if you missed a day in the deer woods or a single sports shooting contest, you ought to vote against me and our whole crowd. But if you didn't, they must be telling you something that's not true here. Let's look at what we're really for.



So I think the NRA did a lot of good things in Arkansas when I was there -- hunter education programs, they helped me resolve some property disputes. They really did some good things. But now they're just into terrifying people and building their membership and raising money, and it's just not true we're trying to take their guns away. It's just not true that we've interfered with legitimate hunters and sports people. And it's just not true that we've done enough in America to protect people from the dangers of criminals and kids having guns.



But you've got to give it to them, they've done a good job. They've probably had more to do than anyone else in the fact we didn't win the House this time. And they hurt Al Gore.

You can substitute "gun owners" for "NRA" in the above, since the NRA's barely-4-million-members aren't enough to do that by themselves. And it wasn't about imaginary fears of "banning all guns," or "banning hunting guns," but the reality of attempting to ban the most popular nonhunting guns in America, that caused the problem.

But agree or disagree with that, the fact is that the ban-more-guns agenda was a MAJOR factor in the loss of the House and Senate in '94 and at least the 2000 presidency.

[Kolesar]

49. Gore lost WV on account of coal / destruction-of-the-atmosphere

The democrats gained in 1996 & 1998. The 2002, 2004 elections turned on the war and those horrific militarist messages (NRA's comfort zone, btw). 2006 was about the war and the mighty anti-free-trade message that is going to pretty much seal the fate of the gop as the party in descent. Especially with their most horrible racist and anti-gay members of the electorate dying of old age. The growing demographic is nothing like them. The baby boomers raised some lovely sons and daughters.

[krispos42]

52. Bill Clinton is still trying to make the 2nd about hunting

And thus his problem with the NRA.

[krispos42]

32. Bull and shit

Gore lost Florida by less than 600 votes. 524, IIRC. Are you really going to tell me that you can't imagine 263 gun owners with a grudge (out of millions of votes cast) picking Bush over Gore because of the ban? Because the ban directly affected them, unlike most of the more nebulous issues like abortion?

What was Jim Webb's margin of victory? Couple of thousand votes? If Webb had another assault weapons ban in his campaign plank, would he have won?

How about John Tester? Again, narrow margin of victory. If he had been preaching Brady propoganda to the voters of Montana, would he have defeated Burns?

[Kolesar]

35. Fair trade, the War in Iraq, and Foley's sexual abuse of minor pages put Webb &Tester in the Senate

I think the Gore vs. Bush election turned on unimportant issues like little Elian Gonzalez and Monica Lewinsky. 263 gun owners with a grudge were already voting for Bush.

[krispos42]

38. Right. The AWB had nothing at all to do with it.

Any of it. The AWB influenced zero voters in critical swing states and critical races.

Sure. Keep telling yourself that as you ride your unicorn to meed Frodo and Aquaman on Titan for a spot o' tea.

[Kolesar]

39. Bullshit yourself, to borrow your rude verbiage. I did not say that

Successful candidates may have won by taking a dive or "laying in the weeds" and not addressing important public safety issues. ;) ;) . However, handgrips and magazines were certainly not the issues that have won or lost elections since 1994.

Any Democrat who thinks he is going to build a constituency by campaigning to the right on weapons ownership issues is a fool. He/she risks sounding like an inauthentic weathervane candidate who has no deep convictions or anything to build the party with.

I notice you use a lot of insults in your posts. Do you have some anger management problems, Frodo?

[krispos42]

41. Handgrips and magazines? Really?

I agree that there is no 'one' issue. Politics across a nation of 300 million people and 3.7 million square miles is a complex beast. In "American Theocracy", Kevin Phillips make the case that the pendulum of social opinion has been swinging to the right since the mid-60's, and a resultant conservative government was inevitable.

Nonetheless, it irritated the hell out of a lot of people. For gun owners, the ridiculousness of the concept led many to believe that the Democrats were either totally clueless on the issue, which goes to their level of competence, or that the Democrats were pursuing a policy of civilian disarmament, of which the AWB was the 'gateway' legislation. Something which, in the minds of many, is a hallmark of a repressive government.

In my opinion, it made the swing move both faster and further. Twelve years of Reaganomics should have been enough, and probably was, because the electorate picked Clinton over Bush the Former in 1992. Yet, for some reason, the electorate swung back in 1994 and picked a GOP majority in both chambers of Congress.

It was only the age of Bob Dole and the presence of Ross Perot that kept Clinton in office in 1996.

Then in 2000, the electorate picked Bush to continue uber-Reaganomics over the tried-and-true policies of Clinton as they would have continued under Gore. And the count was close enough that the Repubs were able to steal it.

One thing that perhaps you don't understand is that the gun ban affected people direct personal property. For the first time in a long time, something that people actually owned, that was kept in their safes and closets and gun racks and under the bed, were being directly attacked by the government, with half of the country cheering them on. Unlike many of the 'cerebral' issues, like the budget deficiet and tax policy and pollution laws, this hit people in a deep and personal way. It was the first thing that many people talked about, and it was an issue of continous debate, more so than corporate tax loopholes in the Cayman Islands.

Finally, it is not a public safety issue. At least, protuding pistol grips and 30-round magazines aren't. And neither of .50 BMG sniper rifles. It simply isn't. Habitual criminals commit crimes whether or not they can get a gun. And habitual honest citizens don't commite crimes, regardless of the number or type of guns they own.

[virginia mountainman]

44. Great Post

One thing that perhaps you don't understand is that the gun ban affected people direct personal property. For the first time in a long time, something that people actually owned, that was kept in their safes and closets and gun racks and under the bed, were being directly attacked by the government, with half of the country cheering them on. Unlike many of the 'cerebral' issues, like the budget deficiet and tax policy and pollution laws, this hit people in a deep and personal way. It was the first thing that many people talked about, and it was an issue of continous debate, more so than corporate tax loopholes in the Cayman Islands.

You just hit upon the crux of it.

And now some of our esteemed leaders want to take up the clarion call for a NEW Ban.

[appal_jack]

46. nothing inconsistent about the Constitution

OK Boreal, I won't sling any insults here, but please hear me out,

>>Any Democrat who thinks he is going to build a constituency by campaigning to the right on weapons ownership issues is a fool. He/she risks sounding like an inauthentic weathervane candidate who has no deep convictions or anything to build the party with.<<

It may be true that some RKBA Democrats will have to overcome skepticism about their beliefs. For too long, many members of the public have believed that "Democrats will take our guns," and unfortunately, Feinstein & DLC'ers have lent credence to that belief.

But the fact is that Democrats can and will thrive if they embrace a broad Bill-of-Rights-embracing platform. There is nothing hypocritical about believing that the freedoms of the 2nd Amendment are just as important as those in the 1st, the 4th, or the 14th for that matter.

I have no hard statistical data about influences on the 2004 election, but I had many conversations with neighbors who supported ALL of Kerry's positions except his support of the assault weapons ban, and those neighbors VOTED FOR BUSH because of that (I myself voted for Kerry, and vowed to send the NRA $50 if Kerry won. Since B*sh "won," the ACLU got my $50 instead).

I myself believe that any Democrat who thinks he is going to build a constituency by campaigning to treat parts of the Constitution like toilet paper is a fool. Have you got any data to disprove that notion?

-app

[benEzra]

47. No one called Jim Webb a weathervane...

Any Democrat who thinks he is going to build a constituency by campaigning to the right on weapons ownership issues is a fool. He/she risks sounding like an inauthentic weathervane candidate who has no deep convictions or anything to build the party with.

No one called Jim Webb a weathervane when he ran a vocally pro-choice campaign on gun ownership, campaigned at gun shows, and did everything in his power to let lawful gun owners, particularly nonhunters, know they had nothing to fear from him.

You know what happened? He took the gun issue off the table, so that the election could be decided on other issues, issues that favored Webb. And he won...

[Kolesar]

50. Did James Webb get the NRA endorsement?

[benEzra]

51. No, just an NRA "A" rating--AND pulled in enough of the gun vote to win.

NRA endorsements are less important than the candidate rating, IMHO, and Webb was a solid A and very vocal about it. He opposes the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, supports CCW licensure (he's licensed himself), and made it very clear that he was not a "gun rights for hunters only" type candidate.

The NRA doesn't elect candidates, gun owners do.

[virginia mountainman]

53. Jim Webb was FOR REAL

You could tell by the way he walked and TALKED.

He did not need a "canned goose hunt" while wielding a "straw purchased" firearm he was trying to ban, like our last pres. candidate.

[joshcryer]

63. Yeah! I love Jim Webb. He was excellent.

Can't believe anyone would think he's not a progressive or is a shill or something. He's a true blue Democrat! We need more real guys like him running for seats.

[hydrashok75]

57. The NRA policy on this is sensible...

...when you have two A rated candidates, you default to supporting the incumbent.

If Allen had been a C or a B and Webb an A, Webb would have gotten the endorsement.

[Xela]

18. Straight from the horse's mouth...

Who could forget the right-wing author Richard Poe's "Seven Myths of Gun Control":

http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Myths-Gun-Control-Reclaiming/dp/0761524258?tag2=richardpoe

There's a section of the book titled: Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control.

check out the 2004 commment over at Indymedia:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293284.shtml

Xela

[WWFZD]

68. Thanks Xela

What a succinct quote! Perfect!

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."
--William S. Burroughs

[benEzra]

54. Found another goodie about conservatives instigating gun controls...

namely, Ronald Reagan himself. From the High Road:

It's instructive to remember that gun control in California started with conservative politicians scared of leftist radicals. Ronald Reagan was the most gun-grabbing governor in California history. Feinstein was also a relatively conservative SF pol, very allied with downtown business and development interests, uniformly loathed by the left. Just goes to show that authoritarian politicians of all stripes favor gun control if they feel the greatest threat is from their ideological enemies.

The reaction to Black Panthers carrying guns openly around Oakland is what started modern gun control in California. Before 1967 you could carry any gun openly or concealed if no round was in the chamber, without permit. Seeing the Panthers with their shotguns made a lot of white people VERY nervous and the Mulford Act passed the CA legislature that year.

It was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. As I have always said, gun control is really about keeping guns out of the hands of 'certain' people.

Why Ronald Reagan thought gun control was a good idea, and why California now has some of the harshest gun laws in America:





After all, only rich white people should be allowed to own guns...which is why the Brady Campaign and others support the right to own $2000 skeet shotguns and high-zoot big-game hunting rifles, but not inexpensive small-caliber carbines...

BTW, I realize that a very small number of Black Panthers were involved in violence, and although provocateurs may have been involved to some degree (link) I'm not defending that. But Reagan certainly didn't mind using that as an excuse to disarm people of color across the board...

[jody]

55. Thanks. n/t

[hydrashok75]

56. Dick Nixon and his buddy Ronnie RAYgun

Two of the biggest gun controllers in recent memory. Add in Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain...and remind why it is that the conservative nimrods think Dem = Anti, Rethuglican = Pro gun as a matter of course?

Maybe in bizzaro world.

Eleanor Roosevelt packed heat. JFK was openly pro-2A. It's really only in the last twenty five years (the Brady era) that gun control was a strong plank in our party's platform...and that's thankfully changing.

Some good reading on the racist history of gun control and it's roots in reactionary politics:

http://progunprogressive.com/?p=206

www.blackmanwithagun.com

[krispos42]

58. Kick for Randi Rhodes

She was so proud of the Sullivan Act today on her show, so I though I resurrect this thread.

[benEzra]

59. Xenophobia...

I wonder how long it will be before someone makes an issue of the fact that Cho was a resident alien, and plays the xenophobia card again. "Keeping guns out of the hands of them damn furriners" and all that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. I call it the 'B-A-G' Technique to subvert the Constituion

'Biddle-Ashcroft-Gonzales technique:

Use a moral panic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
to remove the civil rights of the law abiding.

Even Jack Thompson & Dr. Phil are working this scam re: the VT shootings.


http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39007

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qWJm5cZ3SNM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ivLqXDSSZU8

The sad thing is watching otherwise progressive people buying this shit
if it reinforces their own prejudices

Added on edit: Francis M. Biddle was the AG who ordered American citizens of
Japanese descent and/or birth into concentration camps, for being of Japanese
descent and/or birth. Not a shining episode in American history.

[krispos42]

61. Interesting article on this in G&A

Just found it in an past copy, so though I would post it.

The Dark History Of Gun Control
Black Americans were the earliest targets of gun-control laws.
By John Hay Rabb


For all of the antipathy gun owners may feel toward those who would like to take away our guns, we have no cause to question their motives. After all, we have a common fundamental objective: a country in which all citizens are safe, wherever they live, work or play. But while it may not be legitimate to question motives, it is entirely appropriate to question judgment. In that context, the gun-control movement has some explaining to do.

<snip>

The first gun-control laws were based on a perverse but unassailable logic: People kept in bondage must not have access to arms, lest they turn the arms on their masters. A number of laws were enacted during the early 1800s to prohibit slaves from owning firearms.

In 1865, shortly after the Civil War ended, slavery was outlawed. But in the former Confederate states, measures were enacted to ensure that former slaves were kept in virtual bondage. These so-called Black Codes required blacks (but not whites) to obtain licenses in order to purchase firearms. Because the licensing authorities were usually Confederate sympathizers, few blacks were able to obtain gun licenses. Accordingly, the black population of the South was kept almost entirely defenseless against the depredations of racist mobs.

<snip>

The turn of the century unfortunately did not portend reform of 19th century gun-control laws. Indeed, Southern whites saw no need to change a system that had served them so well during the 1800s. The respected University of Virginia Law School Journal probably spoke for many in the Old Confederacy when it predicted in 1909: "Let a negro board a railway train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip, and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."

more

[SteveM]

64. The racist roots of gun control grow deeply...

"From reports that have come to me at first hand regarding Italians in the East, Hungarians in Pennsylvania and Austrians in Minnesota, it seems absolutely certain that all members of the lower classes of southern Europe are a dangerous menace to our wildlife..."

and,

"Italians are pouring into America in a steady stream. They are strong, prolific, persistent and of tireless energy... Wherever they settle, their tendency is to root out the native American and take his place and his income. Toward wildlife the Italian laborer is a human mongoose. Give him power to act, and he will quickly exterminate every wild thing that wears feathers or hair."

and,

"The Italians are spreading, spreading, spreading. If you are without them to-day, to-morrow they will be around you. Meet them at the threshold with drastic laws, throughly enforced; for no half way measure will answer."

All this (and more!) from William T. Hornaday, Director of the New York Zoological Park, in his OUR VANISHING WILD LIFE, New York, New York Zoological Society, 1913

Hornaday's solution?

"1. -- Prohibit the owning, carrying or use of firearms by aliens, and
2. -- Prohibit the use of firearms in hunting by any naturalized alien from southern Europe until after a 10-years' residence in America."

He has a chapter entitled "Destruction of Song Birds by Southern Negroes and Poor Whites" explaining the difficulty in curtailing the former lest the latter group is caught up in tax and licensing schemes designed to disarm blacks.

[Boomer 50]

65. I've never understood how someone could consider........

Government intrusion to be progressive in any issue.

[SteveM]

66. Bennett (nicotine & gambling addict) is also a rabid drug prohi.

[iverglas]

69. the misogynist roots of US sexual assault laws

The conservative roots of U.S. gun control

Jesus fucking christ this meme is tiresome. Do you imagine there is anyone left in the universe who has not heard it yet?

The "gun rights" movement is an outgrowth of the rise of the right wing in the US in response / opposition to the civil rights movement. EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.

Google "George P Mahoney" and "Your Home is Your Castle" and read the page of Nixon Agonistes: The Crisis of the Self-Made Man that Google Books offers, to save me quoting how Gary Wills characterized the slogan and possibly offending people who think history isn't worth remembering.

This excellent article, which I have quoted before in this forum, is unfortunately no longer on line, it seems:

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.guns.htm

... the 1966 Maryland gubenatorial race: that year, the Democratic primary was won by a Dixiecrat, George P. Mahoney, when the liberal vote was split between two different candidates. Mahoney ran on an unmistakably racist, pro-gun, anti-open-housing (pro-racial-discrimination) platform: "your home is your castle, protect it!" Sen. Tydings of Maryland was at that time an important gun-control advocate, and this was one of the first important signs of the future power (and racist roots) of the pro-gun movement, which before this time had not been a major factor in politics.

It's all there in RECENT history, for anyone who cares to stop pretending that history came to an end before that.


Until very, very recently in our corner of human history, women's "chastity" was the property of men -- their fathers (and brothers), so they would be marriageable; their husbands, so the husband's progeny would be identifiably theirs. Rape was a crime against the owners of the woman's chastity, not against the woman. There was no crime committed when a man raped his wife; there was no punishment when a lower class woman was raped (the interests of her father, brothers and husband being of no concern to the governing class).

Laws against the sexual assault of women were not designed to protect women from men. They were designed to protect the interests of certain men.

Accordingly, today's laws against the sexual assault of women are nothing but a giant patriarchal conspiracy to keep women subjugated, and must be rejected by all right-thinking people everywhere.

Q.E.D.


And just in case someone really, really failed to notice: this is the 21st century. That was then, this is now, and they really, really aren't the same thing.

Even I am disgusted at someone using the words of John F. Kennedy as if they somehow the sick, misogynist, racist, right-wing thing that is the "gun rights" movement today.

gun ownership is NOT intrinsically a right-wing issue

And if anyone had ever said it was, I guess there would have been some point to that whole boring screed.

[iverglas]

82. so I'm gonna quote it

typo fixed

Many people really do apparently need to be reminded that their history lessons are ancient and need updating.

From Nixon Agonistes, by Garry Wills. First, just by way of intro:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Wills

-- not a moonbat, by any means. Criticism of the right from the right can be quite enlightening at times.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=5cVKKLSC788C&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=%22George+P+Mahoney%22+%22Your+Home+is+Your+Castle%22+%22Nixon+Agonistes%22&source=web&ots=E91jk_0wXO&sig=mmuyvUYMrjbyikIz-rNnEg_JD1c&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

By 1966, Maryland Democrats seemed determined to commit suicide at the state level ("all of them stepped up docilely and bumped themselves off"). Two years earlier, George Wallace had won 45 percent of the votes in Maryland's Democratic primary, and those who ran up that total now laid claim to the party. The only candidate they could find was a tongue-tied unctuous millionaire, George P. Mahoney, who had for years been running unsuccessfully in every campaign he could enter. He made his slogan "Your Home Is Your Castle" (up with the castle drawbridge, let the horde of advancing niggers silt up the moat). Red-hots turned out for the primary, and made poor George their nominee. There was nowhere for the liberals, the Negroes, the Jews to go but to the Republican candidate (who thus cheated his opponents of a reelection showdown in the county) -- Spiro the Blessed.

Mahoney was the DEMOCRAT and his platform included both racism and "gun rights".

In modern history, racism and "gun rights" go together. We all know it.

And he was beaten by a REPUBLICAN who got the votes of genuinely progressive elements of the Democratic Party.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/19/143353/31/66/259263

{Dan} Mathias was as close as I ever came to voting for a Republican. (Maybe only because I was too young to vote in 1966--when Agnew was the "sane & liberal" candidate for Governor vs. one George P. Mahoney, a perennial candidate who'd won the Dem primary under the thinly-veiled-racist slogan "Your home is your castle--protect it".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/6/11844/0488/108/621297

I campaigned for Agnew when I was 16 years old
He was a staunch liberal when he ran for governor in 1966. He pushed through a county fair housing law, outlawing racial discrimination in home sales, when he was county exectutive of Baltimore County back when the county was virtually lily white and that was an unpopular and courageous thing to do. He defeated George P. Mahoney for governor, who had run as a segregationist in the 1950's, opposed fair housing when he ran against Agnew for governor, and who 2 years later endorsed George Wallace for president.

http://thetentacle.com/ShowArticle.cfm?mydocid=1127

Mr. Agnew's victory in the general election was really decided in the bitterly disastrous 1966 Democratic primary. Baltimore contractor George Mahoney, a perennial candidate who had lost six previous governor and Senate campaigns, ran on an unmistakably pro-gun, anti-open-housing platform with the slogan, "Your home is your castle - protect it:" transparent code words against fair-housing laws. Riding a white backlash, Mr. Mahoney eked out a narrow win against seven more liberal hopefuls.

http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1970-9/1970-09-10-ABC-14.html

ABC Evening News for Thursday, Sep 10, 1970
Headline: Maryland / Senate Primary
Abstract:

(Studio) 3 men, 1 lobby oppose Senator Joseph Tydings reelection

(MD) George Mahoney right-wing opponent. <MAHONEY - opposes gun control legislature {legislation, presumably}> <National Rifle Assn. President Woodson SCOTT - says gun legislature doesn't affect crime, hurts good people; claims National Rifle Assn. plays no political role.> <Senator Joseph TYDINGS - says gun lobby campaigning against him

Damn. Plus ça change ... Way back 40 years ago, the NRA was flexing its political muscle in support of racist right-wingers.


That Democratic party vote -- the racist / gun-luvvin vote -- is still there to be exploited by the Republicans, and we all know they're doing it.

So hey. Why not help them by pretending that modern firearms control in the US is racist, when we know that the exact opposite is true?

We all know it's the racist, right-wing, anti-firearms control "Democrats" and others who are the racists. But they can always use a little, uh, diversionary fire, to help them cover their true colours.

[iverglas]

83. and all and sundry will continue to pretend that if they pretend it's not there

it doesn't exist.

The vile, filthy right-wingery and racism of gun militancy.

[spin]

70. VERY good info, thanks (n/t)

[old mark]

73. The first gun control laws in the US were designed to prevent

black people from owning guns. They were in reaction to the fear of an uprising of blacks primarily in areas where they lived in large numbers and outnumbered whites.

Gun control began as, and remains a racist, facist position.
I know there are well-intentioned people who believe in gun control, but the forces who direct that movement are lyars whose motives are power and profit.


mark

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

75. No shocking moments here

Guns are one of those things where you have to wonder how it ended up that the pro-choice position ended up becoming affiliated with conservatives.

The same conservatives that want more jail time for pot smokers, would like to see the Supreme Court overturn the 2003 verdict so states can ban gay sex again, and bitch and whine about rap music, baggy pants, body piercings and hair dyes.

Being "liberal" usually means you are tolerant of other people and the right to decide for yourself what kind of lifestyle to live. But "liberal on guns" has become equated with taking guns away...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. Interesting

[old mark]

80. Re-reading some of these posts has me wondering

what kind of government some of us here envision.
If wanting the most possible individual freedom to choose how to live ones own life is not your goal, what do you want?

To me, a leftist government running my life is no better than a rightist government doing the same. Except, we'd probably have healthcare.

I do want the government off my back, as much as possible, and I'm not a "libertarian", what ever that is.

I believe in informed human beings making their own lives to their own satisfaction, and making their own choices, be it gun ownership, birth control, abortion, or whatever.

If that offends some people, maybe they need to be offended more often.

mark

[iverglas]

81. Hey, I'm with you!

I believe in informed human beings making their own lives to their own satisfaction, and making their own choices, be it gun ownership, birth control, abortion, or whatever.

And vehicle speed. Especially vehicle speed!!

[benEzra]

88. Yes. I believe you should be able to own a car capable of triple-digit speeds.

And vehicle speed. Especially vehicle speed!!

Yes. I believe any adult with a clean record should be able to own a car capable of triple-digit speeds. I do, and I am rather fond of mine.

Now, you may not be able to legally drive 150 km/h downtown, any more than you can shoot your 9mm downtown, but there is no prohibition on ownership of either, or the operation of same at whatever speed you desire on private property.

A coworker of mine often drives a Saleen Mustang to work, and occasionally races it (legally) on weekends. More power to him.

[iverglas]

89. ah; and to continue the analogy started not by me

I should be able to have a uterus capable of having a pregnancy terminated.

But ... shouldn't you, too???

[benEzra]

90. Legally, I am so entitled. Biologically, medicine hasn't advanced quite that far....

But for those who do have a uterus, the choice IS theirs, is it not?

Your body, your choice; just don't try to make the choice for others. Sort of like whether or not to own a car, or a gun.

[iverglas]

91. exactly!

And exactly like what speed to drive at. And how much to drink before driving.

My choice.

[benEzra]

93. Ah, but the legitimate restriction is restriction on the improper action.

We regulate what speed one can drive on public roads, but we do not outlaw cars capable of exceeding the speed limit, or restrict their operation on private property. We restrict the consumption of alcohol before driving, but do not outlaw alcohol.

And we restrict where and under what circumstances I can shoot my AK or my 9mm, but we don't ban the lawful possession thereof. Which is as it should be.

[bossy22]

98. excellent

no one could have said it better

[iverglas]

100. and the distinction you claim is utterly specious

as has been explained over and over, and as you are perfectly aware.

[old mark]

85. A quote:

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms...You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man."
Eugene V. Debs


mark

[Jagan]

86. Libertarian

Well, old mark, it sounds to me like you are a libertarian. It is belief that the government should have as little say as possible. The government libertarians strive for exists only to ensure that life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness are not taken from you by another. I am reminded of a quote as well: "The government that governs least, governs best" -- Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, though reports vary.

[old mark]

87. Does this mean that I can not vote for Obama? nt

[Howzit]

92. Ok; so that is looking backward

Now, what about those pushing for more gun control going forward?

[benEzra]

94. You mean...

...like the repubs who run the Brady Campaign?

The ban-people's-guns thing was, and is, a DLC/Third Way thing, an attempt to look "tough on crime" to right-leaning authoritarians. And those pushing for gun bans now are largely people who have been taken in by Third Way sleight-of-hand on the issue (i.e. those who think that "assault weapons" are military machineguns, instead of the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes, or who think most gun owners are hunters).

True liberalism is NOT about "controlling the little people," IMO.

[Howzit]

95. "True liberalism is NOT about "controlling the little people," "

I agree with you 100%, but would add that any politician that sees the common folk as not to be trusted with guns are themselves not trustworthy - I make no distinction between Republicans or Democrats in this regard.

I disagree that the push for new gun control laws is actually intended to suppress crime. The handgun ban in DC was not intended to stop crooks from hurting the law abiding, but rather to reduce the risk that otherwise law abiding gun owners might flip and take out their ire on nearby lawmakers. People further away would have to travel to DC to do the same thing and that would take more premeditation than would be sustained by spur of the moment anger.

Criminals preying on those that are disarmed by DC's laws live in an under-culture where they already act with disregard to law and probably don't follow or care about the political process. As such, politicians don't fear those human predators that disregard gun laws, but use the continued disregard of these laws to justify further restriction and more control of the "little people".

That said, the gun owners I know are not impulsive people and are a threat only in the minds of politicians that want a federal ban on handguns, concealed carry and "assault weapons".

[iverglas]

102. sometimes ...

The handgun ban in DC was not intended to stop crooks from hurting the law abiding, but rather to reduce the risk that otherwise law abiding gun owners might flip and take out their ire on nearby lawmakers. People further away would have to travel to DC to do the same thing and that would take more premeditation than would be sustained by spur of the moment anger.

... you just gotta shake your head.

No point in doing anything else, really. Shake your head and back away slowly.

[Howzit]

96. Your comments on the topic are of the best I have read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=97165&mesg_id=97165

[benEzra]

97. Thank you. Here's hoping that the Powers that Be take it to heart...

and don't give us another 1994 in 2010.

[iverglas]

101. yes, it's those exceptional people again

The ban-people's-guns thing was, and is, a DLC/Third Way thing, an attempt to look "tough on crime" to right-leaning authoritarians. And those pushing for gun bans now are largely people who have been taken in by Third Way sleight-of-hand on the issue (i.e. those And those pushing for gun bans now are largely people who have been taken in by Third Way sleight-of-hand on the issue (i.e. those who think that "assault weapons" are military machineguns, instead of the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes, or who think most gun owners are hunters).

Only in 'Murica, of course.

In the rest of the world, the left is solidly behind firearms control measures of the sort in effect in Canada, the UK, Australia, western Europe ...

Only in 'Murica is it the stupid and the authoritarian who support the very things that the intelligent and progressive support everywhere else. Only in 'Murica is it the intelligent and progressive who support the very things that the stupid and right-wing support everywhere else.

Or is it ...

Not from what I've seen hereabouts, I gotta say.

[happyslug]

99. Only one Comment, to say "H.L. Mencken was no Friend to the Right" is to get things backward

H.L. Mencken was many things, but to call him left wing is absorb. He was anti-fundamentalist, but when most fundamentalists back progressive ideas (Including the direct election of Senators, Women right to vote in addition to prohibition). We have no writings of H.L. Mencken from both WWI and WWII for he supported Germany in both wars (His editors decided to pull him as a writer rather then defend what he would have wrote). His fights with William Jennings Bryan were legendary, but it was more an attack on the idea Bryan was pushing (Income Tax, women's rights, protection of workers) then Byran's religious beliefs (Menchen has the privilege to SWITCH sides on the Scopes Monkey Trial when he found himself on the same side as Bryan, for Menchen agreed with the position any employer can fire any worker who does NOT do what the Employer tells the Employee to do. and that was Bryan's position in the Scopes Monkey Trial, that Employers have the right to punish employees who violate well known rules of the Employer).

Menchen showed his true colors during the Great Depression when he opposed the New Deal. He might be viewed as a "Liberal" if you believe the Rights of Individuals is more important then the rights of the people as a whole, but that is the position of the Right Wing, that people have the right to rip off other people and the purpose of Government is to protect THAT right not to protect people themselves (i.e "Liberal" Economics theory, which is the theory endorsed by the Right and has been since the Civil War). On the other hand if you are an economic progressive, that you believe Government exist to do the most good for the most people, then you were opposed by Menchen. For Menchen is a follower of Friedrich Nietzsche and Herbert Spencer (Who coined the term "Survival of the Fittest, while today used in the Natural Sciences, Spencer aimed it as the social Sciences and why we should leave people die), both put the right of the individual over the right of the Group, even if that meant the group as a whole suffered.

He was a Democrat, but he came from the Coastal Area of Maryland which was still fighting the Civil war as late as WWII (Thus he became a Democrat, but of the Conservative Wing of the Party, even to the right of today's DLC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.L._Mencken

More on Nietzsche:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

More on Herbert Spencer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

No to call Menchen a "Liberal" as that term is used in the US, is a mistake, if Menchen is a liberal then so is Spencer's policy that the Government should NOT help the poor, for it just encourages them (i.e. no welfare, no Social Security for people have to learn to take care of themselves and the best way is to punish them when they don't).