The birth of the 'ban assault weapons' policy

[krispos42]

I went to this site, the American Presidency Project, to see exactly when the Democratic Party became the party of gun control.

The 2004 platform states:

Crime and violence. While terrorism poses an especially menacing threat to our nation, a strong America must remain vigilant against the scourge of homegrown crime as well. We are proud that Democrats led the fight to put more than 100,000 cops on the beat through the COPS program, and we will continue our steadfast support for COPS and community policing. To keep our streets safe for our families, we support tough punishment of violent crime and smart efforts to reintegrate former prisoners into our communities as productive citizens. We will crack down on the gang violence and drug crime that devastate so many communities, and we will increase drug treatment, including mandatory drug courts and mandatory drug testing for parolees and probationers, so fewer crimes are committed in the first place. We support the rights of victims to be respected, to be heard, and to be compensated. We will help break the cycle of domestic violence by punishing offenders and standing with victims. 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.

(Boldface mine)

The 2000 platform states:

Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office determined to turn the tide in the battle against crime, drugs, and disorder in our communities. They put in place a tougher more comprehensive strategy than anything tried before, a strategy to fight crime on every single front: more police on the streets to thicken the thin blue line between order and disorder, tougher punishments - including the death penalty - for those that dare to terrorize the innocent, and smarter prevention to stop crime before it even starts.

They stood up to the gun lobby, to pass the Brady Bill and ban deadly assault weapons - and stopped nearly half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns. They fought for and won the biggest anti-drug budgets in history, every single year. They funded new prison cells, and expanded the death penalty for cop killers and terrorists.

(boldface mine)

The 1996 platform states:

Fighting crime. Today's Democratic Party believes the first responsibility of government is law and order. Four years ago, crime in America seemed intractable. The violent crime rate and the murder rate had climbed for seven straight years. Drugs seemed to flow freely across our borders and into our neighborhoods. Convicted felons could walk into any gun shop and buy a handgun. Military-style assault weapons were sold freely. Our people didn't feel safe in their homes, walking their streets, or even sending their children to school. Under the thumb of special interests like the gun lobby, Republicans talked tough about crime but did nothing to fight it.

<snip>

Protecting our children, our neighborhoods, and our police from criminals with guns. Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and George Bush were able to hold the Brady Bill hostage for the gun lobby until Bill Clinton became President. With his leadership, we made the Brady Bill the law of the land. And because we did, more than 60,000 felons, fugitives, and stalkers have been stopped from buying guns. President Clinton led the fight to ban 19 deadly assault weapons, designed for one purpose only -- to kill human beings. We oppose efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate sporting purposes, and we are proud that not one hunter or sportsman was forced to change guns because of the assault weapons ban. But we know that the military-style guns we banned have no place on America's streets, and we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the gun lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to make America safer.

Today's Democratic Party stands with America's police officers. We are proud to tell them that as long as Bill Clinton and Al Gore are in the White House, any attempt to repeal the Brady Bill or assault weapons ban will be met with a veto. We must do everything we can to stand behind our police officers, and the first thing we should do is pass a ban on cop-killer bullets. Any bullet that can rip through a bulletproof vest should be against the law; that is the least we can do to protect the brave police officers who risk their lives to protect us.

(italics and boldface mine)

The 1992 platform states:

Firearms.

It is time to shut down the weapons bazaars in our cities. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of the most deadly assault weapons. We do not support efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes. We will work for swift and certain punishment of all people who violate the country's gun laws and for stronger sentences for criminals who use guns. We will also seek to shut down the black market for guns and impose severe penalties on people who sell guns to children.

(boldface mine)

The 1988 platform states:

WE BELIEVE that the federal government should provide increased assistance to local criminal justice agencies, enforce a ban on "cop killer" bullets that have no purpose other than the killing and maiming of law enforcement officers, reinforce our commitment to help crime victims, and assume a leadership role in securing the safety of our neighborhoods and homes.

The 1984 platform states:

*crickets*

The 1980 platform states:

*crickets*

The 1976 platform states:

Handguns simplify and intensify violent crime. Ways must be found to curtail the availability of these weapons. The Democratic Party must provide the leadership for a coordinated federal and state effort to strengthen the presently inadequate controls over the manufacture, assembly, distribution and possession of handguns and to ban Saturday night specials.

Furthermore, since people and not guns commit crimes, we support mandatory sentencing for individuals convicted of committing a felony with a gun.

The Democratic Party, however, affirms the right of sportsmen to possess guns for purely hunting and target-shooting purposes.

(boldface mine)

The 1972 platform states:

There must be laws to control the improper use of hand guns. Four years ago a candidate for the presidency was slain by a handgun. Two months ago, another candidate for that office was gravely wounded. Three out of four police officers killed in the line of duty are slain with hand guns. Effective legislation must include a ban on sale of hand guns known as Saturday night specials which are unsuitable for sporting purposes;

The 1968 platform states:

The federal government has come swiftly to the aid of cities needing help to bring major disturbances under control, and Democratic leadership secured the enactment of a new gun control law as a step toward putting the weapons of wanton violence beyond the reach of criminal and irresponsible hands.

<snip>

Promote the passage and enforcement of effective federal, state and local gun control legislation.

The 1964 platform states:

*crickets*

The 1960 platform states:

*crickets*

The 1956 platform states:

*crickets*

So that's a half-century of Democrats on gun control. Please note the 1996 platform that acknowledged that the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban cost Democrats the House and the Congress, so PLEASE stop saying that it didn't!!!!!

The term and paranoia of 'assault weapons' started back in 1992. Before that, it was Saturday Night Specials and criminals buying handguns that were worried about.

[Lasher]

1. It cost us in 2000 and 2004 also

There's people who voted for Junior both times because they believed GOP claims that Democrats would take their guns away. They've still got their guns but now can't afford to buy bullets.

[MLFerrell]

53. I remember our fellow West Virginians well...

John Kerry wants to take our guns away! The liberals are going to outlaw hunting!

Morgantown here, and you, Lasher?

[jmg257]

2. It is very sad that our leaders have learned nothing in all that time

about the ineffectiveness of gun bans; hmmmm...but maybe it depends on what the aims are? While ineffective against crime, bans HAVE been very effective at keeping poorer folks from legally owning handguns, another infringement on constitutionaly protected rights of the people, another way of separating the rich elites from the common folks, good for leaving way too many people to be helplesss victims, a big help towards assuring future tyrants will go unchallenged.

Maybe next time they will learn? We will see where 1022 goes, and MAYBE, finally someone will be listening if it is shot down completely - as it should be. The truth is out there, plenty of facts for all to see. There has to be a reason why they ignore them; I don't get it (???) It's an issue now, and it will be one in 2008, the inetrnet keeps all the gunners informed "instantly" of what's what and whose who.

[qdemn7]

3. I Think The Democratic Party Became Anti-Gun

Along about the time it decided it was the party of white-collar urban elites instead of the blue-collar rural working man. Many of the people who have grown up and spent their entire lives in large cities have never even handled a gun, fired a gun, much less gone hunting. And yet these are the people who are trying to determine policy for the rest of America. Personally I think this is more of a class-based issue than anything. And before anyone brings jobs and wages into the equation, you can always get another job, you can't get your guns back once they've been taken away. So even if the Republicans are screwing the working man wage-wise, people really don't care because Republicans, outside big-city mayors, are not trying to take their guns away.

I'm 50 years old and have lived in Texas most of my life. In my lifetime I have seen Texas go from an all-Democratic state to an all-Republican state. I've worked Union as well as Non-Union businesses and guns have always been an issue in Texas. By this I mean some Union members voted Republican because Democrats were threatening more gun control. I don't care how much the anti-gunners think all this gun control is worth "saving just one life", it keeps costing Democrats majorities almost anywhere. If Democrats want to be the permanent minority party then all they have to do is keep going the same way they have been for the last 40 years.

[DavidMS]

26. Can I go a step futher?

Its a cheap, reassure the public move post '68 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots#1960s) and as a counter to the Republican move to attempt criminalizing any poor person of color (tough on crime moves related to Nixon). It was a poor response and has caused us nothing but trouble since.

Best to emphasize that locking petty criminals is just like sending them to Felon U. And the best approach to crime is prevention.

If we want culture war, lets champion teaching science not religion in the classroom, teaching people how their bodies actually work (That stork explanation only leads to unwanted pregnancies), and assuring that women are the ones making decisions about their bodies.

[AGKISTRODON]

4. Stuff like this

"Any bullet that can rip through a bulletproof vest should be against the law."
===============================================================
All stuff like this tells an experienced shooter is that someone is proposing laws without understanding the issue. Cops don't ordinarily wear "bulletproof" vests, they wear bullet resistant vests. It is just a matter of physics that a bullet suitable for hunting medium and large game, or long range shooting, will defeat a "bullet resistant" vest.
It is a matter of credibility, spout crap, and people will begin to distrust you. The party has been hurt by stuff like this.

[benEzra]

5. Excellent post. Good find! (n/t)

[krispos42]

46. Thank you

I appreciate it.

[aikoaiko]

6. thank you for posting this summary of our positions on gun control over the years.

Gun bans are unconstitutional.

[hydrashok75]

7. Thanks for pointing out definitively that even our own party officials know...

...that gun control costs us elections.

[slackmaster]

8. Interesting post - In 1976 there was a handgun ban proposed in California

Also interesting to note that it failed to qualify for the ballot.

Summary

HANDGUN REGULATION: INITIATIVE STATUTE. Permits surrender of handguns prior to December 31, 1977; directs Legislature to provide compensation therefor. Effective January 1, 1978, prohibits purchase, transfer, or possession of operable handguns, and handgun ammunition, with prescribed exceptions, including possession by police, antique gun collectors, gun club members, security guards and gun dealers. Creates special fund from fines for handgun crimes to compensate for surrendered guns and for appropriations from fund to indemnify crime victims, after such compensation is paid. Imposes state administered handgun licensing and registration requirements. Repeals local authority to license sale, carrying of handguns. Prescribes penalties for violations. Financial impact: Adoption of this measure will result in increased state and local one time costs of at least $3,783,000 which sum does not include amounts necessary to reimburse owners of surrendered handguns.

Proponent

Delores K. Helfgott Committee For Handgun Control; 8455 Beverly Blvd.; Los Angeles, CA 90048 [phone]


http://traynor.uchastings.edu/cgi-bin/starfinder/3358/calinits.txt

Here is a searchable database of California ballot measures back to 1912: http://library.uchastings.edu/library/Research%20Databases/CA%20Ballot%20Measures/ca_ballot_measures_main.htm#ballotinits

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Also in CA, one that did cost Tom Bradley the govenorship

[Bjorn Against]

9. I don't think supporting an assault weapons ban cost the Democrats....

If you look at virtually any poll the majority of Americans SUPPORT a ban on certain assault weapons. Most people do not support the NRA's goal of having guns everywhere, most people sit somewhere in the middle on the issue of gun control. They support the right to keep and bear arms, but they also believe that there should be reasonable restrictions on the gun industry. People may want to have a gun for hunting or to keep in their home for protection, but they don't want others to be carrying concealed assault rifles in public places like the NRA would like to allow.

[scrinmaster]

11. Carrying concealed assault rifles?

First, you can only conceal carry a handgun, second, a real assault rifle costs many thousands of dollars, and requires a very thorough background check, and a $200 tax stamp from the ATF. Besides, murder and other violent crime rates actually go down when concealed carry becomes legal in states.

[Solo_in_MD]

13. They are using the Brady Bunch definition of assault rifle, which is

"anything that looks scary to me", not the correct one

[Bjorn Against]

15. You can conceal just about anything...

Yes, you could conceal an assault rifle in a gym bag. If the NRA got there way I am sure people would be doing that too.

[hydrashok75]

17. Not a lot of criminals...

...walking around with gym bags in da hood.

The point of concealment is to have the weapon on your person for quick access and portability, not to have a 50lb bag of armaments to walk around with.

Less than 1% of gun crime is perpetrated by so called "assault rifles". There's a reason--handguns are a lot easier to conceal.

You have this silly sounding negative bias about what the NRA is all about. There's nothing in their platform that says "carry a gym bag with an AR15 around with you." I defy you to find otherwise in any of their lit.

[Bjorn Against]

19. The NRA supports assault weapons and they support concealed carry...

I never claimed you would find those exact words you quoted on the NRA website, but you will find plenty in support of assault weapons and in support of concealed carry. I honestly don't think there will be very many people carrying around assault weapons in a gym bag, but this is about more than assault weapons. As you said most crime is committed with handguns, I don't want people carrying loaded weapons around in public places because I don't trust everyone to use them responsibly. Yes, many people might be responsible with them but too many of the people I see calling for more guns are really insane people. Not all, but far too many of the NRA's members are the last people I would want toting guns around. If the NRA would come straight out and say that some of their members were NOT responsible gun owners then I would probably be more willing to listen to their position, but when they seem to pretend that they are all about responsible gun ownership and then embrace their members who suggest EXTREMELY irresponsible handling of weapons I have a hard time trusting them.

Honestly, I do support people's rights to own guns but I do think there is some responsibility that goes along with those rights. Quite honestly people who think they need assault weapons scare me because too many of them seem to be more than a bit off their rocker.

[Solo_in_MD]

30. For clarity, what do you consider an assault weapon?

The Brady Bunch definition is fatally flawed...so what is yours?

[hydrashok75]

32. That's like saying...

...I support the right to abortion, and I support the right to ride motorcycles...thus I might support getting an abortion while riding a motorcycle.

Most states that allow CCW permits only allow them for handguns. Your point, even if it made sense, is completely moot. Concealed carry = handguns. Period.

As you said most crime is committed with handguns, I don't want people carrying loaded weapons around in public places because I don't trust everyone to use them responsibly.

This is related to AWBs how?

Analogy to your argument: I don't trust everyone to be responsible with their cars and not to drink and drive. I don't want people driving their cars around in public.

The reality is that states have studied this and found that CCW permit holders are more law abiding then the general public. Ask yourself two questions: 1) Someone with criminal intent and the mindset to misuse a weapon, do you think he's going to get a background check, get fingerprinted, get certified as to competency with the firearm, pay a licensing fee, etc? Hell no, he's just gonna carry anyway. Not letting me carry isn't going to stop that guy. And 2) someone who will bother to do all that, geeze, if he was going to be "irresponsible" with his gun, do you think he'd give over $100+, his fingerprints, a background check, police interview, etc prior to being "irresponsible?" Of course not.

Yes, many people might be responsible with them but too many of the people I see calling for more guns are really insane people.

Holy Stereotyping Batman! People insisting on protecting their freedoms from Dubya's govt are "insane?" We're asking for "more guns"?

Wow, there's a compelling argument. Let's curtail freedoms and liberty because your armchair psychoanalysis is that "too many people" are insane. Define insane? Examples? Or are you just stereotyping? :eyes:

Who's calling for "more" guns, anyway? The question isn't the quantity of guns--it's whether I have the right to use mine to defend myself.

Nothing strikes me as more insane here than your suggestion that the 80mil+ law abiding gun owners in this nation should have their rights and freedoms curtailed because of the misbehavior of a fraction of one percent who can't obey the rules. We don't take beer away because some people drink and drive. We don't take the Internet away because some assholes watch kiddie porn.

then embrace their members who suggest EXTREMELY irresponsible handling of weapons I have a hard time trusting them.

You'll definitely have to substantiate this argument if you expect any credibility. Who here or in the NRA is advocating the irresponsible handling of weapons?

Quite honestly people who think they need assault weapons scare me because too many of them seem to be more than a bit off their rocker

First of all, it's not about NEED. It's about RIGHTS. You don't need a big screen TV, a car, a beer, a motorcycle, or a jacuzzi tub either. The simple fact is the govt has no compelling reason or right tell you you can't have them. Similarly, the govt has no RIGHT to tell you you can't have them.

Secondly, "assault weapons" are by definition fully auto weapons, and thus are tightly regulated by the NFA of 1934. So the weapons you're worrying about are already generally impossible to come by for the general public.

Thirdly, you're engaging in some rather negative stereotyping again. Hundreds of thousands of competitive shooters use AR15s every year for sport and leisure every year without harming anyone or breaking the law. But we're "insane"? What the fuck is that?

We're not the insane ones. The insane ones are the people who think we need to have our sporting freedoms curtailed even though 99%+ of all crime happens with the guns we're not even talking about here in the AWB conversation. It's like saying 99% of drunk driving happens in passenger cars...so we're going to ban tractor trailers. THAT is insanity.

Who are these "insane" people you're talking about, anyway?

[Bjorn Against]

35. The NRA endorsed Bush...

"People insisting on protecting their freedoms from Dubya's govt are "insane?" We're asking for "more guns"?

Ummm...you did realize the NRA tends to be a very right wing organization don't you? I am not saying that all gun owners as insane I am saying too many in the NRA are. Seriously can you honestly tell me you agree with what the NRA is saying here: http://www.nrapvf.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=4614

I am sorry I am not going to support an organization that gives such strong support to Bush, I don't know how you can claim the NRA is "insisting on protecting their freedoms from Dubya's govt" when they are telling people to vote for him.

[jody]

36. As pointed out in previous DU Guns forum threads, the NRA endorsees Dem candidates

that are pro-RKBA against Repug candidates who are anti-RKBA.

[Bjorn Against]

37. That maybe true but you must admit...

The NRA are not exactly "People insisting on protecting their freedoms from Dubya's govt" to suggest otherwise is absolutely laughable.

[jody]

40. I agree the NRA has been taken over by Repug political activists but Skinner says,

"Discussion of gun-related public policy issues belongs in the Guns Forum."

Every time a gun-related thread starts on other forums such as General Discussion it is quickly banished to the Guns Forum.

Why do you want to talk about the NRA and other political issues which I agree is a worthwhile topic when the very mention of guns places such threads in the Guns Forum?

Perhaps in the future, DU will recognize that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self defense is a divisive issue that has cost we Democrats control of Congress and contributed to two losses in presidential elections.

Maybe then, DU will create a forum for Divisive Issues in which we can discuss the major Divisive Issues as a group since no single issue is completely effective alone but together a few issues, perhaps six or so, can be used by shrewd political advisers to gain enough votes from the 30% or so independent voters to win elections.

If we on DU can't find common ground, if we let divisive issues like RKBA polarize us, then IMO the Democratic Party will have a serious time maintaining control of congress for very long.

[hydrashok75]

42. No, it's not

The NRA's standpoint is that the private ownership of firearms is an important buffer against potentially tyrannical govts. Regardless of who is in power.

Look at all the Republicans the NRA attacks--McCain, Bloomberg, Giuliani, Pataki, etc.

[jmg257]

43. NRA do however protect our freedoms, specifically the 2nd amendment,

from ANYONE who would infringe on it. If people are so worried about Bush, why do THEY want to insure only his govt agencies will have guns, especially full autos, when we the people should be barred from having most semi-autos? Its illogical to want to impeach him et.al, but also place all the power in his control. This is definitely something the NRA guards against, all without passsing judgement on who is insane or not. That is what great about unalienable rights - ANYONE who has not had that right disabled via due process is welcome to enjoy the Right and all its benefits, not just those our reprehensible "leaders' pick and choose as worthy

[krispos42]

50. No, they are not, because the Dems are anti-gun

Therefore, most of the members and the politicians they support will be Republicans.

It may not be Bush's government they specifially are worried about, but government in general is one of them.

[hydrashok75]

41. It's a simple calculation...

akin to a lesser of two evils analysis. Frankly Dubya isn't great on RKBA, he'd sign an AWB in a heartbeat.

But compared to Kerry...from a RKBA standpoint he was clearly better. I bit my tongue and voted Kerry anyway, but organizationally, how can you expect a single issue RKBA organization to support an avowed enemy of the RKBA like Kerry?

Anyway, as to your last point, it's simple--even if they're supporting W, the larger point is that the RKBA survives. Even if a tyrant like W gets to keep his seat, the real good that must survive is our RKBA. So yeah, W's not great...but the NRA only has one goal, the preservation of the RKBA which is the paramount concern.

Which is why they endorse pro-RBKA Dems over non-RKBA Rethugs. They're not really right wing, they're pro-2A. Big difference.

[Major Hogwash]

123. And gave Bush $25 MILLION to run against Kerry, a true war hero.

Go figure.

[krispos42]

139. Of course they did

Bush is not anti-gun like Gore is. And Gore was tainted strongly by the 1993 AWB.

Are you surprised that the Christian Coalition supported Bush? Or that the UAW supported Gore?

[Boomer 50]

160. allow me to expand on the last bit in your post

If, as the person you are responding to suggests, "Quite honestly people who think they need assault weapons scare me because too many of them seem to be more than a bit off their rocker", I ask this:

Since 1976, there has been a great deal of paramilitarization of law enforcement in the US. Cops are being given full automatic firearms and are being employed as shock troops in a civilian population. I've been a law enforcement firearms trainer for a very long time. In every class, I ask the question of what situation could possibly occur in civilian law enforcement where a machine gun would be the absolute best or only choice? To this day, there is no answer. So, with that being said, If the previous poster fears people that think they need "assault weapons", how would he or she feel about cops using inappropriate firearms for civilian law enforcement?

I've seen the standard paper cutter training that most cops receive. It's pathetic. Most, and by most, I mean 99.7% or more of citizen CCW holders are far more competent and better trained than the average street cop. I say this not to disparage police and their training but what they learn is absolutely nothing special. In every state where shall issue CCW has been implemented, violent crime has gone down. There haven't been any bloodbaths in the streets as the anti-gun zealots love to proclaim. The fear of weapons is a diagnosable mental illness. It's call hoplaphobia. People that enjoy firearms for whatever their personal reason may be from target shooting to self and national defense understand their obligations and duties as American citizens. Sure, there are whack jobs out there who will misuse firearms just as there are drunk drivers, women beaters, pedophiles, and other disgusting excuses for human trash. Barring all for the actions of a few is counter productive and a sign of serious insecurity. It also leads to revolt and anarchy.

[krispos42]

49. Try carrying concealed one day

It is not something done casually. You cannot forget that you have two pounds of steel strapped to your waist. The burden is very real and tangible.

And which NRA members do you see, and in what context? The obnoxious guys with the NRA hats and stickers on their trucks?

They may be very casual discussing guns, but if you go to the range with them, you'll be surprised. The limited people I've been shooting with have been VERY serious about gun safety.

[SteveM]

22. No crim gives a rip what the NRA thinks.

What is your point? If "you can conceal just about anything," then would you advocate banning "just about anything?" Concealed weapons is a state option and in those states one can already conceal an assault rifle. In fact, not much of that goes on: pistols are smaller. BTW, how would you prevent someone from concealing any kind of gun?

[Bjorn Against]

24. Where did I suggest banning "just about anything"?

In fact if you would read my posts you would see that I have said more than once that I do NOT think the government should be taking people's guns away. But you seem to think because I do not think exactly like you do that I must want to take away everyones guns. Well that is completely misrepresenting my position.

Here is how I would prevent people from carrying concealed weapons, I would make it illegal. If someone was caught breaking that law they could be arrested. I find ridiculous that the NRA people assume that all these people who are going to be carrying concealed weapons truly are responsible gun owners. From listening to the NRA members talk I can tell you I think they are the LAST people I would want carrying a gun to "protect me" from the criminals. So rather than asking me how I am going to stop people from carrying concealed weapons maybe you should ask yourself, what are you going to do to ensure that everyone who carries a loaded gun in public is always going to use that weapon responsibly? Do you just automatically assume that everyone who is going to get a permit to carry concealed weapons is not going to use that gun to commit a crime?

[hydrashok75]

34. Denying freedoms to some is no better than denying freedom to all

In fact if you would read my posts you would see that I have said more than once that I do NOT think the government should be taking people's guns away.
Unless you think they're "assault weapons" (a term you haven't defined yet). :eyes:

But you seem to think because I do not think exactly like you do that I must want to take away everyones guns. Well that is completely misrepresenting my position.

You said you support denying us CCW and denying us certain types of rifles. Sorry, but you do want to deny us some freedoms we enjoy.

I find ridiculous that the NRA people assume that all these people who are going to be carrying concealed weapons truly are responsible gun owners

Why? Every state that's studied this has found that CCW permit holders are more law abiding than the general public. People who are irresponsible with guns are going to be that way whether it's legal to carry or not. Lack of CCW permit didn't stop Mark David Chapman or John Hinckley. Bad people will bad no matter--the only question is whether we take freedom away from all the good people because of a few bad ones. To me, THAT is where the insanity is to be found, the idea that me and the other 80mil law abiding Americans who own guns should be denied the freedom to choose because of a few bad apples.

From listening to the NRA members talk I can tell you I think they are the LAST people I would want carrying a gun to "protect me" from the criminals.

Here you go again. All that negative stereotyping (without any real substantiation). I see your arguments keep boiling down to personal attacks on us gun owners.

So rather than asking me how I am going to stop people from carrying concealed weapons maybe you should ask yourself, what are you going to do to ensure that everyone who carries a loaded gun in public is always going to use that weapon responsibly?

If you use a weapon irresponsibly, you go to JAIL for a very long time, that's how.

It's like asking how I can make sure everyone with a driver's license will behave responsibly. I can't of course, but I don't take the freedom to drive away from everyone because a small fraction misbehaves.

Look, we have CCW permits in about 40 states give or take, and it hasn't been a problem in any of them. People who are going to commit crimes with guns aren't going to go through a permitting process to do it.

The bottom line--the people you don't want carrying aren't going to bother getting permits, and the people who do get permits aren't the people you need to worry about.

[SteveM]

157. I was merely following your logic referencing concealment...

Sorry if you are offended, but my question was fair game.

As for the rest of your comments,

"...listening to the NRA members talk I can tell you I think they are the LAST people I would want carrying a gun to 'protect me' from the criminals." I would venture to say that many people who are packing are members of the NRA (I am not, BTW). Has there been a crime wave emanating from these folks? How many incidents have there been recorded wherein CCW people have committed crimes with their guns?

"...what are you going to do to ensure that everyone who carries a loaded gun in public is always going to use that weapon responsibly? Do you just automatically assume that everyone who is going to get a permit to carry concealed weapons is not going to use that gun to commit a crime?" The assurance you seek is impossible and should NOT be a test of any policy/training to carry CCW. Again, how many incidents have there been recorded wherein CCW people have committed crimes with their guns? I don't automatically assume anything about most issues; the best anyone can do is to enact effective policies that address REAL problems.

[Zynx]

28. Not really. Very impractical to conceal rifles and normal barrel shotguns.

Long guns weigh anywhere from 5 to 10 pounds loaded, are several feet long, and in the case of anything that has an external clip, quite wide as well.

You aren't exactly going to put it in your pocket or a waistband.

[krispos42]

48. Hundreds of millions of people in this country have the right...

to carry a concealed pistol and own an assault-style rifle, yet choose not to. You, I feel safe in assuming, are one of them. Nor will you be changing your mind, no matter how loose the laws on this issue get. And your hundreds of millions of comrades-without-arms will do the same thing.

[lastout]

154. thanks for posting what I would have---

[Solo_in_MD]

12. A pure AWB would be fine, but since it always gets embellished by the Brady Bunch

when the NRA and others *CORRECTLY* portray it as being gun grabing legislation, it loses. There is a clue here.

You, like the Brady Bunch and others also mistate the NRA position. When the hyperbole is exposed, your credibility on the topic is gone. Another clue.

Stick with facts and address the concerns of gun owners. Just screaming about the evil NRA is not going to help anything.

[Bjorn Against]

14. Find me a poll which says the majority support the NRA position on this....

You won't be able to, just because you don't agree with me does NOT mean my credibility is gone. I am NOT for going door to door and taking people's guns away, and I never suggested doing any such thing.

[hydrashok75]

18. I do know that a majority of Americans

think our gun laws should stay the same or be less strict.

We don't need better gun laws. We need to build a less crime prone, more progressive society. You won't solve drunk driving by taking cars away. You won't solve addiction by making crack and heroin illegal. And you won't prevent crime by taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

[Bjorn Against]

20. I am with the group that says they should stay the same...

Other than that I think the assault weapons ban that Bush allowed to expire should be reinstated, and I am not a fan of concealed carry. That is a very similar position to the majority of Americans. I am NOT supporting taking people's guns away nor is hardly anyone else. I think the NRA and their supporters have been lying to the people by telling them we want to take all their guns away when that is not the case at all.

[dairydog91]

21. Err...

Other than that I think the assault weapons ban that Bush allowed to expire should be reinstated

Why? It did nothing, as criminals prefered and still prefer concealable pistols over unwieldy rifles. All that "Assault Weapons" bans do is prove to many gun owners that Democrats think that GTA III is an accurate protrayal of street crime ("Well, CJ carries an AK, so that must mean that real criminals use lots of AKs"). Claiming that we need to ban military-style weapons based on mythical mass-use by criminals is a Grade-A slice of Truthiness.

I am not a fan of concealed carry.

Well, my dad's ass was saved on at least one occasion through the drawing of his handgun, so you'll forgive me if personally I'm in favor of CCW.

[SteveM]

23. Coalition Against Gun Violence used to be Nat'l Coalition to Ban Handguns.

The new name reflects its "...current emphasis on banning rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." Kates & Kleck, THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN DEBATE, 1997. There has been an growing emphasis to ban ALL guns among the gun-control groups.

[hydrashok75]

33. Somebody already said it..

...but it bears repeating: the AWB was a stupid piece of legislation that didn't do anything to stop criminal behavior but did cost Democrats congress.

I doubt a majority of American's don't support CCW. We have it in 40 states, and there's no serious movement to repeal it in any of the states that have it.

But you DO want to take our guns away. How can you reconcile the statement that you don't want to take guns away...but you support the AWB? That's like saying I don't want to ban abortion...I just don't want women between the ages of 18-35 to have them.

Support bans = denying people their right to firearms. The NRA is absolutely right--people like you do indeed, by your own admission, want to take away our AR15s, M1As, etc.

[jody]

38. People ignore the simple fact that SCOTUS said government is not obligated to protect

an individual unless she or he is custody and SCOTUS said individuals are obligated to protect government, e.g. military draft.

Why then would an intelligent individual give that same government the authority to take away citizens' rights to arm themselves against criminals?

[jmg257]

39. Let's examine the "gun control poll" antis love spouting about...

Main points: only 2400+ people polled, "majority" = 52% (of only 2400 polled!)
Compare that number to the NRA who represent 4 MILLION people.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=471
These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,408 adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive® between May 10 and 17, 2004.

The main findings of the survey are:

A modest 52% majority favors stricter gun control, with 22% wanting less strict control and 20% wanting no change.

A slightly larger 57% majority favors stricter laws relating to the control of handguns, with 18% favoring less strict laws and 19% wanting no change.
*************************
By 29% to 25% a modest plurality thinks President George Bush would be better on the gun control issue than Senator John Kerry, but 22% see no difference, and 24% are not sure.
*************************
Small and equal proportions (23%) prefer a Republican-controlled and a Democratically-controlled Congress on the gun control issue. Most people see no difference (31%) or are not sure (24%).
**************************
Republicans and Democrats hold very different views on gun control. A 71% to 11% majority of Democrats favors stricter gun control, whereas Republicans are split 35% to 35%. A 65% to 7% majority of Republicans think President Bush would handle the issue better than Senator Kerry, while a 45% to 6% plurality of Democrats believes the opposite.


What is more important is the TREND revealed by these polls:


FAVOR STRICTER OR LESS STRICT GUN CONTROL

"In general, would you say you favor stricter gun control, or less strict gun control?"
Base: All Adults
1998 69%
1999 63%
2000 63%
2004 52%

*There is a change in the question in 2004. In the previous surveys "neither" was not offered as a possible response but was accepted if given. In this new survey it was offered as a possible response.

Note: Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding.

TABLE 2

FAVOR STRICTER OR LESS STRICT CONTROLLING HAND GUNS

"In general, would you say you favor stricter or less strict laws relating to the control of hand guns?"

Base: All Adults
1998 76%
1999 73%
2000 72%
2004 57%
________________________________________

IF you are going to rely on these results, then you have to also see it is obvious that lesser people favor strict gun control every "year"; it is NOT a winning strategy to keep pushing an uncontitutional agenda that more and more people do NOT favor.

[hydrashok75]

16. Polls schmolls

Polls represent the viewpoints of anyone who can fog a mirror and answer a phone.

The people who actually bother to vote are another story. Amongst people who actually vote, AWBs aren't nearly so popular as you might think.

People who answer those polls are also usually answering polling questions that are designed to lead you to a certain answer, ie leading questions that bias the results, like "do you think military style weapons should be banned". Never mind that the bans in question do NOT ban military style fully auto weapons but rather semiauto weapons. If you educate people about AWBs and show them the facts about AWBs (that criminals don't use expensive semiauto rifles, they use handguns; so called "assault rifles" aren't really assault rifles at all because things like the M1A, AR15, etc are actually semiauto, not full auto; fully auto weapons are already regulated by the NFA of 1934 which even the NRA doesn't lobby against so we don't need any more such laws; so called assault rifles are used in less than 1% of all gun crimes), support for AWBs goes down dramatically.

Also, gun banning is political suicide for one basic electoral demographic reason--people who do care about gun rights tend to be passionate, educated, motivated, and monied single issue voters. By way of contrast, gun control just doesn't get people out of bed in the morning like it did in the early 1980s. I know lots of erstwhile Republicans who say things like "I support an AWB, you don't need those things" but will still vote GOP even though the Dem candidate supports an AWB.

In short...people who favor gun rights are often single issue voters who are turned off by any antigun candidate. OTOH, there are correspondingly a lot fewer single issue gun control voters.

Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and the DNC leadership all have been able to admit to themselves that gun control costs votes overall. Why can't you?

[DavidMS]

27. If we actualy define terms, I am prety sure it will change

I would love to do some polling.

Keeping it anonymous, I would love to ask some 10,000 Americans the following questions.

Question:

1. Demographic information questions go here? (party affiliation, age, sex, ethnic origins, religion, region/city of birth, education, education of parents, etc)
2. What is your primary source of news (TV, Radio, Internet, Newspaper, etc). Which newspapers/websites/tv/etc.
3. Do you own a firearm? If yes, what for? Have you ever owned a firearm? Did your parents own firearms? etc.
4. Do you know of anyone who was a victim of violent crime? What happened?
5. In your own words define, "assault gun," "assault rifle," assault weapon."
6. What weapons are commonly used by criminals (handguns, long arms, "assault weapons")
7. How many Americans do you think die from firearm related causes (suicide, accident, murder) per year? How many sucides?
8. Can you briefly sumerize federal/state firearms law for us? Who can own what?
9. Should these laws be tightened / loosened?
10. Given that, state federal and relevant state law here... should firearms laws be changed? And how?

Record, and run through quantitative analysis software like Atlas T.I.

I will hypothesize that there is a direct correlation between general knowledge of firearms law, firearms related statistics, and exposure to them being the primary determinants of a persons position on gun control.

Get it into a reputable peer reviewed journal and see how things change.

[jody]

29. Interesting points. I would add the following questions.

Do you know that SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to protect a citizen unless she or he is in custody? IMO the majority would answer NO!

Given SCOTUS's decision, do you believe a law-abiding citizen should be allowed to defend herself/himself against a criminal? IMO the majority would answer YES!

Do you believe that a handgun is the most effective/efficient tool for law-abiding citizens to use for self defense in particular the average person who is physically weaker than the average criminal? IMO the majority would answer YES!

[Wickerman]

56. What would the advantage of running those stats through

Atlas T.I as opposed to, say SASS or SPSS?

How would you set up your 10k sample?

Why 10K?

Why, in other words, would your sampling be any better than the sampling and reporting of a professional company?

[DavidMS]

135. You are right...

I omitted mentioning that SAS and SPSS, and should have said Tools like Atlas TI (mostly because its good for answers other than yes/no, etc). I support a bunch of Statisticians at work and we use all these tools.

I recall from college that a 10K sample of the US population leads to a good enough margin of error. (IIRC many national surveys are about 3-5k).

Also all questions would need to be properly phrased and vetted for cultural/linquistic/clarity issues.

Best to turn it over to some processionals.

I spent too much time reviewing the questions and not enough on the rest of it.

The big reasion to run such a survey would be to see correlation of misinformation about firearms and societal violence.

I also would add a few more questions about spouse abuse (rates, whats the profile of a perpetrator/victim, etc.)

[krispos42]

47. The NRA's goal...

Is to make sure that, if you so desire to, you can own essentially firearm not outlawed by the 1934 National Firearms Act without being hounded, harassed, questioned, or taxed to death, and that you can get a guaranteed concealed carry permit as long as you meet certain requirements such as criminal background checks and safety courses.

They are, of course, more than happy to offer help and encouragement to those interest in gun use and ownership.

And I would point out that most Americans support a ban on certain abortion procedures. They do not support the NARAL's goal of having abortions performed everywhere, most people sit somewhere in the middle on the issue of abortion. They support the right of women to keep or abort a fetus, but they also believe that there should be some reasonable restrictions on the abortion industry. People may want to have an abortion because of rape, but they don't want others to be going to abortion-on-demand places like NARAL would like to allow.

[Wickerman]

57. So, you are saying that NARAL has over-reached in their goals?

Couldn't the same be said for the NRA as they award endorsements to Republicans who receive an A over a Dem who receives an A- rating? As they choose a battleground state like Minnesota in 2004 to endorse Bush in attempt to sway the state to give control to the Republicans?

I find their VERY subjective ratings too hair-splitting to support when democracy is at stake. DU is about Democratic politics, not supporting institution like the NRA who have over-reached their mandate and who are part and parcel of the very political arm that smashes the rights that they state they are there to protect.

[jody]

58. If "DU is about Democratic politics" then why are we pro-RKBA supporters who agree with the Dem

Platform that says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms" relegated to the gungeon and accused by a strident minority of DU members of being NRA supporters?

The NRA is now controlled by Repug political activists and I've seen them use despicable lies against a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate for whom I worked as a volunteer.

That does not mean however that the NRA's position on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a single issue is inconsistent with we Dems who are pro-RKBA and support the Dem Platform.

[Wickerman]

59. Jody, I assume the first question is rhetorical

as you and I have discussed it many times and I am even less to say about it now than I ever did back then...

As far as the NRA single-minded cause of RKBA; I have to agree with you in theory, but I believe their reprehensible actions to negate other freedoms make them not worthy of the adulation I've seen heaped on them down here as of late.

:hi: hope all is well.

[jody]

64. Understand but just as most threads mentioning guns are moved to the Guns Forum, IMO threads

on this forum should be limited to RKBA.

IMO if a poster wants to introduce NRA's involvement in political issues other than RKBA, then the thread should be moved to DU's General Discussion: Politics forum.

Will that happen?

Not likely and DU will continue to call the Right to Keep and Bear Arms political issue recognized by the Democratic Party in our platform as simply the Guns Forum.

Skinner has said before he will not allow RKBA discussions to be moved to the Civil Liberties forum. That in spite of the fact that SCOTUS and the Department of Justice recognize RKBA is a civil liberty and apparently that is the intent of the Democratic Party when it included the statement in our platform, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

I've been a member of DU since its beginning and I'm a daily reader of threads and infrequent participant on a dozen DU forums that interest me.

Thanks to you for your continued serviced as moderator and have a nice day. :hi:

P.S. It's interesting that Bob Barr is a NRA Board Member and works with ACLU. Barr left the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party. I mention that fact because Barr joins liberals like Laurence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz in believing individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. My point is that RKBA makes strange bed-fellows.

[Wickerman]

66. I better understand your point

but I do think that a discussion of the NRA's political dealing would never then be confined to only the political spectrum. We are then circling back to the RKBA issue and that, whether you agree or not, is gun forum talk. In other words, I understand the logic.

Thanks to you for your continued serviced as moderator and have a nice day.

not to take credit where it isn't due, please note I no longer have a shadow; I am a civilian these days but I appreciate the :hi:

Bob Barr, I think I remember him (the NRA can have him, strange bedfellow indeed!):

Rep. Bob Barr, R-GA, winner of the 1999 Equine Posterior Achievement Award, has a consistent record of attacking the U.S. Constitution and American values. Barr's record sets a new standard for hypocrisy and mean-spiritedness in public life. This self-righteous Georgia congressman considers himself a moral crusader, but he has more than his share of petty corruption scandals from his past. First elected in 1994, highlights of Rep. Barr's political career include:

Supporting a constitutional amendment to undermine separation of church and state. "Congress has the opportunity to send enemies of religious freedom a clear message that their attempts to erase religious belief from America's culture by cleverly manipulating the judicial system will not be tolerated," Barr said.

Becoming the first member of Congress to introduce an "inquiry of impeachment," long before the public had heard of Monica Lewinsky.

Giving a keynote speech at a gathering of the racist and anti-immigrant Council of Conservative Citizens, a direct descendant of the White Citizens Councils set up across the South in the 1950s to defend segregation.

Calling hate crimes legislation to protect the rights of gays and lesbians, women and disabled Americans "a backdoor way to obtain protected status for sexual orientation and sexual deviancy."

Sponsoring the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. Despite the fact that he was married three times, sued by his second wife, and, according to published reports, was once seen at a fundraising event licking whipped cream off of the chests of two women, Barr explained his sponsorship of DOMA this way: "The flames of hedonism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society: the family unit."

Earning consistent 100 percent ratings from the Christian Coalition.

Sponsoring an amendment ­ passed by Congress ­ that barred the Washington D.C. Board of Elections from tallying the votes on a referendum to legalize the use of marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, AIDS or glaucoma. Officials estimate it would have cost only $1.64 to count the votes.

Campaigning on a pledge to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts.

Voting to cut funding for Head Start, Medicare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and student loans.

http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Barr/barr1.html

If he is on the NRA Board then they need better screenings. If he is on the ACLU board then they should have their collective head's examined!

[krispos42]

137. No, I think NARAL is right on with their goals

Mandatory waiting periods, mandatory counseling, having to drive hundreds of miles, being lectured by some fundie pro-lifer about the joys of adoption are all, I think, unacceptable to that fundamental right.

And I'm not an NRA member, nor will I likely ever be one, even though they have a pretty nice magazine. I'm not real fond of the NRA's tactics or their rhetoric.

The point of my original post is that Democratic Party politics didn't latch onto anti-gun paranoia until the early '90s or so. And considering the huge numbers of Democrats that get cranky about any attempt to limit rights in general and fully enjoy the RKBA, I think this is definately a topic that needs to be discussed.

[Scout]

61. "NARAL's goal of having abortions performed everywhere"

"most Americans support a ban on certain abortion procedures" ... "don't want others to be going to abortion-on-demand places like NARAL would like to allow"
got a link for those assertions?


http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about-us/learn-about-us/
Learn About NARAL Pro-Choice America

For more than 30 years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the nation's leading advocate for privacy and a woman's right to choose. With more than one million members and supporters, NARAL Pro-Choice America is fighting to protect the pro-choice values of freedom and privacy. With the far right in control of the White House and many state legislatures, our work has never been more important.

Electing pro-choice candidates: NARAL Pro-Choice America elects pro-choice candidates through PAC support, direct voter contact, and political expertise. During the campaign season, we educate and mobilize voters through paid advertising, earned media, direct mail, online messaging, and other get-out-the-vote efforts.

Organizing: NARAL Pro-Choice America uses traditional and innovative online organizing methods to mobilize pro-choice Americans in all 50 states. Our grassroots power helps to educate and mobilize pro-choice activists, stop anti-choice legislation, and defend our rights against well-funded, emboldened anti-choice forces. Through strategic organizing, we are building the next generation of pro-choice leaders who reflect the strength of our country’s diversity and share a commitment to protecting women’s reproductive freedom.

Lobbying Congress: NARAL Pro-Choice America fights the relentless onslaught of anti-choice policies and legislation introduced in Congress and works with pro-choice legislators in support of bills to protect a woman’s right to choose and expand women’s access to reproductive-health care. Fortune Magazine has described NARAL Pro-Choice America as "one of the top 10 advocacy groups in America."

Research and analysis: NARAL Pro-Choice America is the only organization that provides up-to-the-minute information about state bills, the enactment of new laws, and decisions handed down by state and federal courts related to reproductive rights. Our staff monitors state and federal activity on a daily basis.

Affiliate network in the states: NARAL Pro-Choice America pursues state-based organizing, advocacy and constituency building in coordination with its state affiliate network. State affiliates work to advance pro-choice legislative strategies and defeat anti-choice measures in their state legislatures, elect pro-choice candidates, and educate and engage the public on choice issues.

A Timeline of NARAL Pro-Choice America's History
Click here to learn more about critical moments in the history of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the pro-choice movement.

NARAL Pro-Choice America's Mission
Click here to read NARAL Pro-Choice America's official mission statement and diversity policy.

More Information about NARAL Pro-Choice America, Inc., PAC, and Foundation
NARAL Pro-Choice America's work is divided among three organizations:

* NARAL Pro-Choice America, Inc., a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization
* NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC, a political action committee
* The NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization founded in 1977

[krispos42]

138. You take me two serieslee!!111!!11!! :-)

But I was in general referring to the repeated attempts to ban late-term abortions, to impose mandatory waiting periods and counseling, or to put so much pressure on abortion clinics that a state might only have one or two places that do it. For example, in South Dakota they are only dones in Sioux Falls, and only two or three days a week. And the doctor that does it flys in from Minnesota!

[benEzra]

51. Outlawing ALL shotguns holding more than 5 shells, ALL rifles and pistols

I don't think supporting an assault weapons ban cost the Democrats....

President Clinton himself said the Feinstein bait-and-switch cost at least 20 House seats, and was a "decisive" factor in some of the states that went against Gore in 2000 (had Gore not lost his own home state of TN, and WV, over the gun issue, he'd have won WITHOUT Florida, and the gun issue was huge in Florida as well.)

FWIW, Newt Gingrich reportedly had opportunity to kill the Feinstein ban in conference committee. He played dumb and didn't. You know why? Because he WANTED Dems to pass it, knowing the backlash that would ensue, and he rode that backlash right into Tom Foley's chair.

If you look at virtually any poll the majority of Americans SUPPORT a ban on certain assault weapons. Most people do not support the NRA's goal of having guns everywhere, most people sit somewhere in the middle on the issue of gun control. They support the right to keep and bear arms, but they also believe that there should be reasonable restrictions on the gun industry. People may want to have a gun for hunting or to keep in their home for protection, but they don't want others to be carrying concealed assault rifles in public places like the NRA would like to allow.

Banning ALL shotguns holding more than 5 shells, ALL rifles and pistols holding more than 10 rounds, and self-loading rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out, are NOT supported by "the majority of Americans." Labeling the most popular civilian guns in America "assault weapons" does not change the fact that tens of millions of people will be REALLY pissed if you ban them.

Depending on the definition you use, there are at LEAST twice as many "assault weapon" owners as there are active hunters in this country. (Only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter.) Care to speculate on what the reaction would be if we outlawed hunting? Multiply that times two, and that will be your reaction to H.R.1022 if it ever passes.

[slackmaster]

54. Sorry I'm late in this sub-thread, but I have to respond to this

If you look at virtually any poll the majority of Americans SUPPORT a ban on certain assault weapons.

A majority of Americans, even a majority of gun-owning Americans, have been misled about the issue: Most people think the AWB banned fully automatic weapons.

[SJames]

152. No you are wrong

We know what was banned and what was not banned . Polls are BS.

[SteveM]

153. Most folks I talk to STILL think "assault weapons" are full-auto.

[Withergyld]

25. The 2004 platform is contradictory

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms" does not agree with "reauthorizing the assault weapons ban" or "closing the gun show loophole." The original AWB was an infringement on the 2nd Amendment right to owm firearms. The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. Gun dealers have to follow the same rules at the gun show as they would at their regular place of business.

[guntard]

31. Gun control was a cynical counter to Repub claims of weakness against crime

Your research confirms a theory I have been propounding for a while that gun control has only relatively recently been associated primarily withe the left and the Democratic Party in this country. I believe it was adopted as a policy simply as a response to Republican claims in the fifties and sixties that Democrats were soft of crime and criminals. So the Dems glommed onto gun control, which in 1968 had more bipartisan support than it does now (the 1968 Gun Control Act was a product partially of the terror conservatives felt for armed radical groups such as the Black Panthers).

In fact, if you look at the views of leftists and liberals prior to 1968, most of them would have recoiled in horror at the suggestion that the people should be legally disarmed, that only the state should be so empowered. There's nothing progressive in the notion that the people cannot be trusted with arms, that only the state should have arms. The only reason this anti-civil rights idea is associated with progressives today is because of cynical political calculations made by the Democratic Party in the seventies.

Since then gun control has become simply another battlefield in the culture wars.

Use your heads, people. There's nothing "progressive" in demanding that the people must cower weaponless before the likes of Dick Cheney and George Bush.

simonov

[Solo_in_MD]

44. It has always been racist at its roots, which make me cringe to see it as a center piece

in some Democrats politics.

Use your heads, people. There's nothing "progressive" in demanding that the people must cower weaponless before the likes of Dick Cheney and George Bush.

Is a great statement, but it will offend the doctrinaire here who are convinced that firearms are the root of all evil and urban violence.

I take the position that private ownership of firearms is a progressive value...it shocks and offends some, but I really don't care. I toss in a bit of ridcule for good measure.

[guruoo]

45. Love the site

Bashir, his Bushmaster CAR-15 and Cisco

Bashir: I just think it's a good thing to have.

[guntard]

73. "You don't have enough posts to send private messages."

Interesting. Talking is perceived as being more valuable around here than listening.

[jody]

74. Do you have something to say, then go for it. n/t

[Wickerman]

99. Interesting, already bitching about the site.

The enough posts rule is a mechanism employed to minimize disruption. DU has had a history of folks who come only disrupt. The rule could be seen as one mechanism to cut disruption. BTW, if you came to the Gungeon to listen, good for you. I have now seen everything - I never thought I would see the day when someone came here to listen. Oh, er, did you mean for people to listen to you. Oh. My bad.

[guruoo]

130. No sarcasm intended, guntard.

:hi:

[SteveM]

146. What? This is a great place for solid research. And I use it. (nt)

[derby378]

52. I cringe at this line from the 1996 platform...

Today's Democratic Party stands with America's police officers.

Whatever happened to the Democratic Party standing with America's citizens? Wow. That just blows my mind.

But we're starting to make progress...

[dairydog91]

55. Not to mention...

this: "Any bullet that can rip through a bulletproof vest should be against the law". There goes pretty much every single rifle in the country, including most of the hunting rifles.

[Wickerman]

60. and what is in the 2007 platform

and why are all on DU still rehashing the past?

[derby378]

62. Probably just a matter of perspective

The best way to tell where you're headed is if you know from whence you came in the first place. Sort of a "bullet trajectory" analogy, I suppose.

It's a mini-synopsis of the Democratic Party's evolving approach to gun legislation. There isn't a 2007 platform, but it'll be interesting to see what happens in 2008 when the convention assembles once again...

[Wickerman]

63. I see many here who are so "horrified" at the stance they suspect

the Dems might take for 2008 that if I weren't so disgusted I'd almost request a round of applause for the Rethuglican's ability to whip all our loyal Dems into such a lather on rumor and innuendo. One more time the Republicans, from the Brady Org to the NRA, to the folks who run our favorite gun websites (yours excluded, of course, nice work, btw) will ramp up the rhetoric to vilify Dems - and it will work. Folks will take it hook line and sinker and not only will vote Rethuglican, but will come on DU and attack the Democratic party as a whole rather than the few deserving, rather than work to change it from within.

And, issues of gun violence will not be one step closer to settled. The war on drugs will come no closer to dismissal of the huge failure that it is. The NRA will do the bidding of their Rethuglican masters and win seats for the right on their trumped up wedge issues. The Brady Org will gnash their collective teeth and stir the pot further. And the gun manufacturers will reap the bennies for making enough of whatever "banned" gun(s) to supply the frenetic demand whipped up by the folks who support the ban "de' jour" frenzy.

And we all on DU will help perpetuate it.

[jody]

65. Excellent points. I'm concerned that Repugs will once again portray the entire Democratic Party as

gun-grabbers.

That could make the difference in a close presidential race particularly in marginal states. For example, polls now show Alabama is 49% Democratic and 46% Republican, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=137x4037

Alabamians are passionate about RKBA and are prone to believing Repug lies that a Dem president will ban all guns. :puke:

[jmg257]

67. It does NOT take the repubs to whip up anything, all one has

to do is look at the sponsors for HR1022:

NY
Rep. Gary Ackerman {D-NY}
Rep. Joseph Crowley {D-NY}
Rep. Nita Lowey {D-NY}
Rep. Carolyn Maloney {D-NY}
Rep. Louise Slaughter {D-NY}

FL
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz {D-FL}
Rep. Robert Wexler {D-FL}

CA
Rep. Howard Berman {D-CA}
Rep. Lois Capps {D-CA}
Rep. Anna Eshoo {D-CA}
Rep. Bob Filner {D-CA}
Rep. Zoe Lofgren {D-CA}
Rep. Adam Schiff {D-CA}
Rep. Brad Sherman {D-CA}
Rep. Ellen Tauscher {D-CA}

MO
Rep. William Clay {D-MO}

CO
Rep. Diana DeGette {D-CO}

MA
Rep. William Delahunt {D-MA}
Rep. Barney Frank {D-MA}
Rep. Edward Markey {D-MA}
Rep. James McGovern {D-MA}
Rep. Martin Meehan {D-MA}

PA
Rep. Chaka Fattah {D-PA}

AZ
Rep. Raul Grijalva {D-AZ}
Rep. Edward Pastor {D-AZ}

HI
Rep. Mazie Hirono {D-HI}

TX
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee {D-TX}

RI
Rep. Patrick Kennedy {D-RI}

NC
Rep. Bradley Miller {D-NC}

VA
Rep. James Moran {D-VA}

NJ
Rep. William Pascrell {D-NJ}

IL
Rep. Janice Schakowsky {D-IL}

MD
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen {D-MD}

ALL those little Ds aren't some rhetoric; they're a fact that the pubs will once again use, the pro-gunners have already taken note of, and which will further re-inforce the anti-gun stances and history of anyone running from our side - most of which is also not rhetroic, but unfortunately easy to document votes and comments.

[Wickerman]

68. And, glad to have you aboard here at DU to make my point

Been fighting long and hard for Democratic policies? Or, are you just another shit stirrer here to make sure everyone knows that Dems are going to take your guns? Your post is the type on DU that irritates the shit out of me. You offer only criticism of the Dems and offer not solutions whatsoever - with no background of what you represent but an attack on Dems. :eyes: Thanks.

You do realize that this represents about 10% of the Dems in the house? I'd also ask you to take a look at the districts these folks represent. They are all areas that are hard hit by crime. They may not be tackling it (crime) in the way you'd like, but they are taking it on in the way that corresponds to the will of their voters. Until the issues that cause the crime are effectively addressed these pols have little advantage in not doing what they think protects their constituency.

[jmg257]

70. Sorry to irritate you, my solution is easy -

STOP SUPPORTING GUN CONTROL! Fairly easy, no?

I am more interested in my liberty then towing the party line. I am also pointing out what is "obvious" to gunners everywhere, whether it is 100% true or not - that IS the perception, and for glaring reasons.

It is THEIR JOB to know the truth about gun bans and crime - we know they do not work, they should too. They should also know what the Constitution says, they sure take an oath to support it. They apologize to me for trying to take away Constitutionally-protected rights, and STOP trying, and I will stop making such a judgement on who is responsible for what.

[Wickerman]

75. Got it, just another shit stirrer with no solutions. thanks.

[dairydog91]

78. Well...

An new AWB won't solve anything, so we should probably seek policies that will actually do something about crime.

Really, what's your argument? That we don't know anything that will actually be effective against crime, so we should engage in meaningless symbolism? Trying to combat crime by banning scary guns is like trying to fix the deficit through blood sacrifices to the Sun. Utterly pointless. There are ways that we can fight crime, but if these means are not attainable it's no reason to engage in pointless posturing.

Edit - It's also a bit difficult to kick the "Dems as gun-grabbers" meme when the entire group of HR1022 supporters have little Ds after their names.

[Wickerman]

81. You are the one that has to have unfettered access to guns, you come up with the solutions

I don't give a shit one way or the other about collapsible stocks and protruding handgrips. Since I am not willing to stake my passion on other people's lives I think its more incumbent on those that desire the cosmetics to make the case for solutions rather than simply demonize those they disagree with. With freedom comes responsibility, eh?

Again, 10% = gun grabbers? Thanks for doing the work of the Right Wing.

[hydrashok75]

83. Er....what?

What does that have to do with coming up with solutions?

We have all kinds of solutions. Quit the war on drugs. Actually punish violent criminals instead of people convicted of petty drug crimes. Build a better, more progressive society that actually values education, opportunity, equality.

You can solve the problem without taking guns away. So why bother trying to take the guns away in the first place?

[Wickerman]

88. No, the question isn't why take away guns

it's why demonize the Dem party for the actions of 10%?

[jmg257]

116. Have you been asleep the last 15 years?

You think this is something new, only limited to 10%? DO you follow anything else besides what the house is doing? Have you any interest in any other legislature or executive besides THIS ONE? YES, the Democratic stance IS changing, the word IS getting out there that it is a failed policy to pursue, but WAAY too many on our side champion the anti bullshit; and the perception stands.

[Wickerman]

118. I have no idea what the fuck you are mumbling about

Gun control/RKBA issues aren't even on my freaking radar screen and you, new to DU, who has only posted in the Gungeon asks me if I have any other interests than this one? Please, don't make me laugh.

[jmg257]

121. So if you don't know what you are talking about, why keeping running on about it?

States? Other legislatures? California? NY? Maryland? Other executives? NY? Chicago? Illinios? DC? Mass.? Asleep for 15 years...Clinton? Reno?

I get it now, since you are ignorant on the issue, it MUST be some RW bullshit and not REAL democrats on the wrong side of this issue.

Yep - move along - nothing to see here...

[Wickerman]

124. no, its actually your refusal to read anything else but what you came here to fight about

I actually think I understand the issue fairly well and am trying to take it above the he said she said shit you are intent to wallow in. What exactly do you bring to the table that we should bow and scrape to you for your vote? What are your Dem credentials? I am rather confident in mine, but I've seen shit from you so far.

As far as your state lege issues I believed that has been discussed and I'm not going to get carpal tunnel syndrome spelling my thoughts for you again.

[jmg257]

134. You think so, but you are ignorant on so many levels about what

so many others BELIEVE. You think because only 33 Democrats (only) currently sponsor the McCarthy bill that there is the extent of Democratic anti-gun rhetoric - not a problem! You seem to think that some portion of 80 Million gun owners aren't worth scraping votes from, because YOURS is a lock. There is NO bowing necessary, the issue at question will be self evident, so far it hasn't worked. I don't need to read your thoughts again, they have been consistent throughout this thread; you feel there is NO real problem in the Democratic stance on guns because of "only 10%", so you don't see it as anything more then a RW conspiracy. You think it is more important to protect the party from the message, then to find out WHY the message is out there (beyond a conspiracy). You do not see the importance of this issue to so many people in this country, and what it says TO THEM about any politicians who do not support even a fundemental & protected right of the people, simply because WE GUNNERS haven't come up with a solution for dealing with crime (although we have).

Fair enough. We can let it rest. The politicans will hopefully tell us what they believe in, they may even tell us why, and we can all vote on what is important to us.

[krispos42]

141. Lieberman

How much damage does Lieberman's constant sucking-up to BushCo's Iraq war policies hurt the Dems?

He's only 2% of Senate Democrats, yet he is causing enormous damage.

Same here with the 30 Dems listed above: the 10% that does justifies the stereotype of all.

And the number of sponsors has been climbing. It was 12 a couple of weeks ago.

[dairydog91]

133. I'll take some ad hominem with that nonsensical argument...

Well, I'm sure the first part of that qualifies as an ad hominem argument. Really, I'm "willing to stake my passion on other people's lives"? First off, unless "Sociopath" is now a compliment, that was somewhat rude of you. Second, how exactly am I staking my "passion" on other people's safety? Military-style rifles, due to their hefty size and price, are quite rare on the streets, and their lethality has been grossly exaggerated. I fail to see how supporting their availability in gun stores is placing people in significantly elevated danger.

I think its more incumbent on those that desire the cosmetics to make the case for solutions rather than simply demonize those they disagree with.

I'm not detecting much logic here. A new AWB will remain dumb in concept, whether or not I post about it. Two, I'm not demonizing those I'm disagreeing with, I'm attacking their arguments with facts. Third, the whole idea encapsulated in that quote is almost too silly to contemplate. If military-style guns are not causing problems unique to their design, then there is no reason to ban them, and no reason for their owners to "prove" that they need certain features. Though I repeat myself, an AWB will remain stupid legislation whether or not I propose effective policies towards crime.

Again, 10% = gun grabbers? Thanks for doing the work of the Right Wing.

That 10%, plus the previous support by many of the current POTUS candidates (Obama, Edwards, and Clark for certain), plus the official Democratic Platform for the last few presidential elections. I certainly know that's enough to worry many of the gun owners I work with.

[SteveM]

147. If prohibition is sought, prohibitionists need to come up with the "whys." nt

[jmg257]

114. Too complicated for you? What part don't you get? No shit involved,

it works, and works well.

[Scout]

71. bravo, excellent post. Thank You n/t

[jmg257]

72. And if ONLY 10% support it when it comes time to vote on it,

then that is a great thing - and more as it should be. In the mean time, millions of gun owners are facing the REAL threat, again, of losing a bit more of their Right; and they also know what side of the isle the idea came from - again. This just federally, the same thing is going on in many states across the nation. Gunners are fed up with it, and looking to strike out at ANYONE pushing such bans.

[Wickerman]

76. and again, we point the finger of blame but no solutions to the actual problems

You're aware this is Democratic Underground? Find some fucking solutions to the reasons people react to the illegal use of guns in their neighborhoods instead of supporting the RW line and you'll have something worth saying here at DU. Otherwise, its all just RW noise.

[guntard]

77. Help me parse this

Find some fucking solutions to the reasons people react to the illegal use of guns in their neighborhoods . . .

I'm not sure what you are asking for here.

The people to whom you are replying so immoderately are looking for ways that Democrats can avoid being tarred with the gun-grabbing brush. The most obvious solution to this problem is for Democratic politicians and candidates to, um, stop grabbing guns.

By "solutions to the reasons people react to illegal use of guns" do you mean solutions to people's erroneous perceptions of what the real problems are in their neighborhoods; or do you mean solutions to the basic causes of violent crime?

Are you attempting to assume an anti gun rights posture here without actually being explicit about it? If so, I think the more responsible question (always) is, "What problem are you attempting to solve with gun control?" I like this question because when posited in this way, it is easy to show how gun control doesn't actually address or even mitigate any of the problems its promoters pretend it solves. The only purpose for advocating gun control, so far as I can tell, is to ensure election in districts where gun control is a popular idea. The efficacy of the policy is almost never discussed.

And bandying about the label "RW" as you do does little to enhance your argument, especially since, as has been demonstrated elsewhere in this forum, gun control was originally a right wing, reactionary policy.

[Wickerman]

79. I'm sorry you don't like RW - you admitted to not being a Democrat

and this is a discussion board for Democrats - those who would advocate for others to hold office should post elsewhere is the essence of the rules that you agreed to when you signed up here.

No, fer chrissakes, I am not trying "assume an anti gun rights posture here without actually being explicit about it". What has always ann oyed me about this forum is that everyone has to be able to identify their stance in terms of gun nut or gun grabber rather than actually getting at the issues that drive the arguments.

For the gun rights me firsters the issue is one of winning the argument, fuck the issues that drive the reasons why people want guns removed from their neighborhoods in the first place. For the banners its the unreasonable expectation that if you try to get rid of all guns then *poof* all guns will be magically disappear and all of the inner-city high crime areas will disapear. Neither argument does anything but scratches the surface of the issues and it gets pretty ridiculous when folks come on this board and pretend to solve the problems by blaming Democrats. Peddle it elsewhere, to quote an old friend.

[hydrashok75]

82. I just don't see that.

"fuck the issues that drive the reasons why people want guns removed from their neighborhoods in the first place. "

Baloney.

The issue for us is PROTECTING OUR FREEDOM. PERIOD.

It's not that I don't care to understand the "issues that drive the reasons why people want guns removed", it's that A) I recognize that gun control isn't the answer to the problem and B) even if it was, giving up freedom for security is a step down a slippery slope I'd rather not take.

[guntard]

86. It's getting positively FROTHY around here!

For the gun rights me firsters the issue is one of winning the argument, fuck the issues that drive the reasons why people want guns removed from their neighborhoods in the first place.

Again, are you demanding that people who are passionate about gun rights drop everything and first address the fundamental reasons for violent crime? That's certainly a worthy endeavor, but the causes of violent crime are legion, and there are no soundbite-worthy solutions that will compel attention in our current soundbite-obsessed political climate. If I was passionate about anthropology, I might take a swing at it, but I am passionate about gun rights and I do have all my arguments in favor of my gun rights position lined up and ready to go.

If you want to tackle all the myriad causes of violent crime, then by all means go for it. But how is it the exclusive responsibility of the gun rights bund to join you in this task?

Neither argument does anything but scratches the surface of the issues and it gets pretty ridiculous when folks come on this board and pretend to solve the problems by blaming Democrats.

As far as I can tell, in this thread Democrats are only being blamed for two things:

1) Grabbing guns despite the fact that it is a failed social policy and a trampling of civil rights to boot; and

2) Losing elections by wittering on senselessly about gun control.

[Wickerman]

91. What I see in this thread is a bunch of folks with no progressive

stances coming on DU telling us what fuckups the Dems are for those 10% who are responding to the bidding of their districts.

So, again, I say, tell the Dems how to respond to the mother who lives inthe impoverished neighborhood how you will cut down on gang related activity, cut down on hand gun crime, so that her kids might be able to play outside on nice day without worrying about getting killed. Like it or not, that is what the claim of gun control gives her. We can argue that it is a false sense of security, but it what washes in the districts that those 10% represent. Until you who want your pistol grips above all else work to come up with some solutions that appease mom in the high crime neighborhood all you are doing on boards like this are the equivalent of masturbation. If you actually want to do some good, figure out a way to represent gunners as having a little compassion instead of part of the fuck you, old lady, its my right to have a gun, illegal guns are your problem.

[hydrashok75]

94. Speaking of optological exams...

"a bunch of folks with no progressive stances"

Who are you addressing here? I'm as progressive as they come. Hence my focus on building a more progressive society as the solution instead of a regressive, reactionary, fundamentally authortarian policy like gun control that has its roots in racism and classicism.

If only 10% of Dems supported gun control, the rest of us truly progressive Dems who value individual freedom and the RKBA would be able to say mission accomplished. We're not there yet. Most of the leadership in power right now is still predominately pro gun control and thus out of step with the party mainstream, which has indeed dropped gun control.

"So, again, I say, tell the Dems how to respond to the mother who lives inthe impoverished neighborhood how you will cut down on gang related activity, cut down on hand gun crime, so that her kids might be able to play outside on nice day without worrying about getting killed"

As I said, build a better society--one that values opportunity, equality, and education.

A truly progressive society will solve the problem. Gun control won't.

[Wickerman]

96. you continue to want to parse this argument as one of gun control

and gun rights. That, as I've said several times, is not the issue - at least that I am arguing. So, you want to build a better society, show those who would criticize your gun stance that you actually give a shit and show them rather than just go on and on about your constitutional right.

[jmg257]

105. That idiot Guiliani was smart enough to get it, why can't we?

Here it is - TARGET CRIMIANLS! There is plenty of information about what works to bring down crime rates, and plenty of information about what doesn't (i.e. gun bans). You act like the answer isn't obvious, that those who lead this party can't figure it out w/o our help - that's bull! (atleast I hope it is) THEY should explain it to the mother, the victims, that gun bans have been proven NOT to work, so we are gonna try a novel idea - we are actually going to try locking up criminals. Gunnies have been saying that for YEARS - enforce the laws we already have; but that all gets washed away as long as misleading stats, half-truths, and outright lies are shouted out by those in charge saying just the opposite - saying that GUNS are the problem. CHANGE THE PLATFORM, and the myths will go away, and victims-to-be will stop believeing them.

[krispos42]

142. I have consistantly stated things I think will fight crime

including:

legalization of drugs, economic development, returning our manufacturing base to this country and with them unionization, universal health care, and a massive investment in education.

Whenever this comes up, especially with Billbuckhead, those are my recommendations.

However, this forum is dedicated to gun politics, not to solving crime and socio-economic problems. We can and do often digress into this area, however, because differentiating betwen gun control and crime control are usually intetwined.

[hydrashok75]

80. Yeah...

...what he said. Seems pretty clear Wickerman is hinting that gun control and LW must somehow be hand and hand, congruent positions.

I don't see that.

[Wickerman]

84. I guess you should check your eyes, then

because I specifically refuted that. I said that it is incumbent on you, the guy who must have guns of any and all shape, to offer some solutions to gun violence. With freedom comes responsibility - I see most of the "I've got mine" Libertarians here on DU offering no solutions and only chucking RW talking points at the expense of the Dems - the only party that will protect ALL of your rights.

[guntard]

87. Boy, you sure got that backwards.

I said that it is incumbent on you, the guy who must have guns of any and all shape, to offer some solutions to gun violence.

In a free society, it is incumbent on he who would infringe upon my civil rights to justify those infringements, not the other way around. And since I have NOTHING whatever to do with violent crime, don't try to pin that one on me.

[Wickerman]

89. So, you have no responsibility to society?

My, how progressive of you. I want social justice, I work for social justice and fight against injustice, I want free speech, I work to protect free speech and contribute to free speech whenever I can. You want cosmetic baubles on guns, you demonize those on the left and support the billion dollar gun industry for every gun they want to market by buying them up as they and their machine ban them. Nice work, patriot! :applause:

:freak:

[hydrashok75]

90. I can have a responsibility to society...

...at the same time it is encumbent upon you to explain why I should be denied a freedom.

I have all sorts of responsibilities to society, and I live up to them daily. I pay taxes and obey the rules...but society has a responsibility to me, and part and parcel of that responsibility is to NOT take my freedoms away needlessly.

IOW, I don't see much of a refutation of his point--it IS your job to explain why he shouldn't have the freedom in question. Nothing wrong with erring on the side of freedom.

[Wickerman]

93. where, again, did I say he can't have a freedom?

I said, well, fuck it, read it again yerself.

Only 10%
No solutions offered, only lobs at Dems

I won't respond to every post in this thread with the same rhetoric. Read my posts in the thread for greater meaning, I'm tired of telling you that I want to take a freedom when I've said nothing of the sort.

[hydrashok75]

95. Anything other than agreement with his post...

...indicates you're not on the right side here, IMHO.

He said something simple--it's up to society to explain why he shouldn't have the freedom to own guns. Your response was something about responsibility to society. Where did he ever say he didn't have one?

Pretty clearly you were trying to imply that part of that duty to society is something contrary to what he was saying.

I don't think you're being as clear as you think you are.

What exactly is that responsibility you were discussing as a counterpoint?

[Wickerman]

97. ok, I abide by the fact I may not be as clear here as I intend to be

What I am not saying:

That gun control is the answer to anything.

It is, however a means to give some folks who are worried about crime a tangible demon to fight. Those on the progressive side of the RKBA side would do well to find another mechanism to assuage those fears. Right now, to folks in that kind of crisis the "your gun crime problem ain't my problem" approach is pretty fucking callous sounding and is adversarial when instead you could be working to build bridges with those with whom you disagree.

This whole debate is each side yelling loudly that they are right and the other side is wrong when the whole issue is really a matter of response to crime - something neither side ever really gets to.

So, my point, which admittedly gets lost here and there, is that Gunners could make more ground by showing some concerns about the issues instead of the constant chest thumping about their right to own bayonet lugs. That don't mean shit to the lady who is worried about her 9 year old getting shot on the playground.

What I get incensed about is all the newbies who come on this forum and attack the entire Dem party for the efforts of 10% and who offer nothing to the forum in return.

[virginia mountainman]

98. Let me interject.

Wick, It is hard to debate someone with logic, when they respond with PURELY EMOTIONAL responses, not based an any sort of reality.

When it comes down to bayonet lugs, and pistol grips, that is what we are doing.

Personally I am burnt out on trying to be nice. And every time we sit at the table to "negotiate" we loose something, and we are repeatedly told "NO MORE GUN CONTROL, after we get this small bit of common sense" law passed.

I am tired of being nice. I am tired of negotiating, I WANT ACTION.

[Wickerman]

100. Fair enough. Offer nothing, receive nothing.

Who accomplished more for Civil Rights? MLK or Malcolm X?

[hydrashok75]

104. You want the politically correct answer?

Or the real one? :)

In the end, it's people willing to stand up for rights that shape the world. By any means necessary.

[Wickerman]

107. and that response is why you scare the shit out of middle america n/t

[hydrashok75]

109. Who scares middle America more?

The person willing to stand up for freedom and liberty, or the person willing to sacrifice those things in a false hope of achieving a little security?

Given how poorly gun control does for Dems (see uh...the rest of this thread, including our own party platform) at the ballot box, I think it's pretty clear the answer is the latter.

[Wickerman]

115. And a perception of the gun toter is that he is willing to give up other's security

for a little personal security. Not everyone is going to take the time to fully understand concealed carry, etc. and the attitude of gunners that its your obligation to understand something that we learn kills on TV is a major public relations problem. Most people who desire their security and who subscribe to gun control won't understand your freedom and liberty argument. Remember, this is the society that didn't blink when Gonzo tapped our phones and read our email.

[jmg257]

119. OK - good points, but TV isn't the only place they are getting fed

inaccurate information and myths about the "evil guns". Since this is DU, we won't discuss when the real campaigns against "AWs", for the children safety, for sportsman uses only, and all the other bullshit anti talking points started.

[hydrashok75]

120. Which gets us back to...

...the unending debate or kerfuffle over individual vs. collective liberty.

For me, it's any easy one--simply explain to those who see me as a gun toter sacrificing their security that nothing in their agenda is actually making them safer! Disarming me isn't making you safer; we have to keep pounding that argument, and that really is where the rubber meets the road.

Until we make gun controllers understand that argument...there's little else to discuss.

[Wickerman]

127. and, if you continue to use rhetoric like "controller", then there will be nothing to discuss. n/t

[hydrashok75]

128. Kinda like when you use things like "gun toter"?

Someone who advocates for gun control is a gun controller. What's wrong with that? At some point, we have to not be afraid to call the kettle black.

[Wickerman]

129. hmm, I thought I used gun toter and gun grabber together, but perhaps not

And the kettle/pot thing is central to my thesis that without mutual respect then we'll have no way to ever reach common ground. So, at this point I guess we have to agree to disagree.

[virginia mountainman]

132. But with what do we negotiate with?

What do we give up next?

Pistol Grips?

"so called" assault rifles?

Where does it end?

The pro gun side, has GIVE, and GIVE, and GIVE....it is never enough... Some of the loones in congress and the senate, still call "guns unregulated"

and if we do give some more? what would you say when they call hunting rifles "sniper rifles"?

What next? At what point will the anti's say, We got what we wanted, we want no more???

I have a feeling they will never get to that point till, only the government has guns. Why don't THEY come to the table willing to "negotiate"?

[krispos42]

143. That is a good point

We can negotiate with things like background checks and storage laws, perhaps. Making NICS checks mantatory for all gun sales, private included.

But the Brady people come up with a bunch of stuff they want banned, we have to just say 'No, sorry'.

[hydrashok75]

108. Fair enough

"Right now, to folks in that kind of crisis the "your gun crime problem ain't my problem" approach is pretty fucking callous sounding and is adversarial when instead you could be working to build bridges with those with whom you disagree."

I'd never try to argue that gun crime isn't all a problem for all of us (and I think you should know by now that's not my argument).

My stance is more "taking my rights away isn't going to make you safer, so take that off the table already and then we can talk".

As my friend VA Mountainman says...it's hard to have a rational conversation with someone radically trying to take your freedom away.

[Wickerman]

112. we are close to the same page, at least we are now reading the same book

:D

However, I'm afraid I still read your post as I'm not going to give you enough respect to listen to your fears because you are trying to take my freedom away. Each side needs to listen more. Gunners need to understand that discussion of pistol grips and bayonet lugs seem incredibly superfluous to those who want safety. Both sides have a lot of noise they need to cut through. Blaming the other side isn't accomplishing anything.

And no, I am not saying you are callous to the crime problem. I am saying its a perception problem and if it were dealt with it might make easier hoeing for the RKBA cause in the Dem party.

[hydrashok75]

122. Superfluous?

The antigunners are the only ones obsessing about pistol grips and bayonet lugs. :)

[Wickerman]

125. No, its simply that they know only a man with a really large penis

would dare have such a gun so they are intimidated. :yoiks:

[jmg257]

113. So stop getting all worked about it!

NO ONE is attacking the entire Democratic party, nor do we have to lick up to the ones we do not agree with! Again, denial works for some, for others tryanny takes all forms and yes, may even be a Democrat, or a repugnent repub like Bloomberg; it don't matter on THIS issue; it is wrong, it is not a solution that works, by ANYBODY's information. You take attacks on the party personal, I take attacks on my Rights personal - no matter who is leading the charge.

[benEzra]

145. I tend to agree with you...ramble follows...

What I am not saying:

That gun control is the answer to anything.

It is, however a means to give some folks who are worried about crime a tangible demon to fight. Those on the progressive side of the RKBA side would do well to find another mechanism to assuage those fears. Right now, to folks in that kind of crisis the "your gun crime problem ain't my problem" approach is pretty fucking callous sounding and is adversarial when instead you could be working to build bridges with those with whom you disagree.

This whole debate is each side yelling loudly that they are right and the other side is wrong when the whole issue is really a matter of response to crime - something neither side ever really gets to.

So, my point, which admittedly gets lost here and there, is that Gunners could make more ground by showing some concerns about the issues instead of the constant chest thumping about their right to own bayonet lugs. That don't mean shit to the lady who is worried about her 9 year old getting shot on the playground.

What I get incensed about is all the newbies who come on this forum and attack the entire Dem party for the efforts of 10% and who offer nothing to the forum in return.

I agree with what you're saying here. It seems to me that we are rehashing the conservative-vs.-liberal debate on crime fighting strategies that we went through a couple decades ago, except now it is (mostly DLC affiliated) Dems who are pushing the Iron Fist approach.

I am only 36, but I am old enough to remember when progressives loudly pointed out that treating the symptoms of crime isn't enough, that treating the CAUSES of crime was the key to long term declines. Certainly enforcement is also necessary, but it should be directed against real criminals, not people who use non-approved herbs medicinally or recreationally, or who own guns that Sarah Brady doesn't like the styling of. But I think we all agree on what most of the root causes of crime are, and what needs to be done to address them.

The problem is, I think, that the gun-controllers have become victims of their own rhetoric; that while earlier gun control was a means to the end of fighting crime (background checks, most notably), gun control has become an end in itself. I think the attempt to ban certain rifles, when rifles are almost never used in violent crimes, is a case in point; such bans are directly almost exclusively at the law-abiding, but since bans have become the desired end and not a means to an end, it leads to the impasse you describe. McCarthy et al want to ban as many guns as possible because they think they should be banned, not because they want to reduce crime (since they are demonstrably irrelevant to the crime picture).

There is a huge amount of common ground to be found on fighting crime, but people do need to realize that that common ground isn't to be found in the domain of "which guns do we ban next?" but rather in "which social ill do we address next"?

[jmg257]

111. You are a real hero.. who can pick and chose what rights you want to champion.

Good for you! You want others to give up rights YOU don't like, as long as the ones YOU chose to defend get a clean pass.

What type of justice is that? Hypocrisy at its finest. Fight for ALL rights, for ALL people - then you can clap - for yourself.

[Wickerman]

136. I want no one to give up any rights

Can yo name one right I have asked anyone to give up? I'd rather see folks work to compromise and to try to understand each other a bit more. All that seems to fall on deaf ears. I have failed in my effort to communicate my thoughts to you, but I don't feel bad - you aren't here for anything more than your selfish self-interest. You talk about the party, but really what you want is the party to bend your way with no compromise or even consideration from you. And when you don't get what you want from us you'll go back to whence you came, perhaps those fine folks who take away all your other rights but pacify you by letting you keep your gun.

[hydrashok75]

92. Huh?

"the guy who must have guns of any and all shape"

For starters, that's not me.

"to offer some solutions to gun violence."

Why is that my job? Why am I responsible for other people fucking up? That said, I did offer plenty of solutions--real solutions that actually might work, when it's clear gun control won't.

[Malidictus Maximus]

103. Oh, please

" I see most of the "I've got mine" Libertarians here on DU offering no solutions and only chucking RW talking points at the expense of the Dems"

Actually it's a hell of a lot of us trying to tell our fellow progressives to shut up because they do not know what the hell they are talking about. People who don't know the difference between a semi auto and a machine gun, people who want to get rid of scary looking guns, people who don't like guns so they think that no one else should have them. All those people do is GIVE elections to the Republicans.

If Hillary Clinton went before the NRA and made the speech I'd love to write for her she would get a RINGING endorsement. There are some who look at the NRA and see an organization that usually supports Republicans. Well, DOH! But it's not because of any other reason than the ISSUE, the most important issue to a lot of people in a lot of vital states. And no one in the Democratic party has given a good reason why someone in Ohio or Tennessee or a great many other states should not have a cool weapon to go shoot; the fact that some gang bangers in the big cities shoot each other and unfortunate innocents just does not matter to people who grow up respecting firearms and their fellow citizens; in short the problem is the gang bangers, not the guns= fail to grok that and hand a few dozen states to the Republicans that we do not need to.

And no, it is NOT incumbent on me or any other firearms enthusiast to offer solutions to gun violence; just because I drive does not make me qualified or obligated to offer solutions to traffic problems, either. Personally I favor use a gun in a crime, go to jail in Kazakhstan or Yemen for life, no appeal, no parole, no second chance.

[Wickerman]

106. and how has the telling others to shut up worked for you?

Feels good, accomplishes nothing.

Btw, it is a central tenet of the RKBA side that you can't compare cars and gun when you are talking about the right to drive, etc. Probably shouldn't use the argument then to absolve yourself of any liability for traffic laws, either.

Other than that, nice post!

[Malidictus Maximus]

144. I think capturing both houses

is pretty good evidence that the more we let a few gun grabbers speak for the Democratic Party the more votes we lose. The concerns of city dwellers in blighted areas are valid, but not so valid that we can piss off tens of millions of voters for whome guns are a major part of their life and for whom the shooting sports and self defense are major priorities.

And I have no problem in using an analogy from driving if it fits; anyone who can't distinguish between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE is an idiot. Guns and cars are both mechanical instruments that can accomplish a variety of effects, are not truly necessary for many of the people who have them, can be great fun, can cause great harm and can become objects of a fetish.

Yeah, I admit I come from the libertarian side, but the True Believers with their complete muddleheadedness on so many crucial issues (environment, health care, trade and taking care of those at to bottom) are rather irrelevant these days. Frat boys who need to put down the bong and get on with real life. As I've said before- who I sleep with, what I put in my lungs and what I have in my gun closet are all none of anyone else's business

[jmg257]

110. You keep inferring that - that the Democrats protect all our rights,

yet we keeping showing you that IS NOT THE CASE...NOT in the case of the right to keep and bear arms. AN entire adminstration made it their policy to re-interpret the Constitution, to put out misleading facts, to fight the 2nd at every opputunity. NOT RW propaganda, but a FACT. We would like it to STOP, we do not like it, especially when we want them to represent us - on ALL issues.

[Wickerman]

117. Stop living in the past

Read today's platform. 10% are responding against your wishes. Work on the 10% and quit demonizing the entire party.

[jmg257]

126. OK - fair enough point! I do see what you are saying.

And all I am saying is that it isn't just the 10% in the House, it is ongoing on the local levels too. Plenty of gunnies are facing very REAL threats to their Right in the States the live. I have here in NY, although that was a repub!

[madville]

148. I'm not to worried

I'm not worried about the anti-gun division in the Democratic Party, the most vocal ones primarily hail from states like California, NY, MA, etc where anti-gun laws are favored by a majority of the population so their seats are safe when they support the issue.

I doubt we will see anything pass in the next few years anyway. The Blue Dogs are pro-gun and other rural Democrats are not going to vote anti on this issue unless the (D)leadership really starts twisting arms. I don't think we are in a strong enough position to take on such a topic at this point and I hope the majority of the party leadership realizes that.

Plain and simple it is a horrible issue to bring up before 2008 because it gives the other side ammo in regards to the stereotype that Democrats are all anti-gun. If played right this new assault weapons legislation could work to our advantage if the majority of Democrats are allowed to vote against it along with most Republicans. It would be a great statement that Democrats want nothing to do with the issue, I hope the play it that way if it even gets to a vote.

[jmg257]

101. WHO gives a rat's ass about RW noise??? ITS BULLSHIT!

THIS problem IS a Democratic problem because many ARE perceived as anti-gun, individually and as a party. Why is this so fucking hard to digest? WHy is ANYthing that seems contrary to shouting out how wonderful we are so hard to listen to? The solutions to illegal gun use is sooo obvious - deal with the criminals - that I do not know why IIII have to be the one to figure it out! IF anti-gunners, plenty of Dems included - in the Senate, in the White House, in the COngress, in the States - STOP BULLSHITTING THE PEOPLE about how the lastest ban will stop crime, the people won't be fooled! The ISSUE being discussed here is that some Democrats don't care - they HATE guns, or they want more control of the people for whatever reason. That I DO NOT support, no matter WHAT PARTY they belong to. And - go figure - enough Dems do that it is a COMMON AND ACCURATE perception...RW noise or not. Take the issue away from them - by NOT SUPPORTING GUN BANS - period!

IF you can not accept the fact that there are anti-gun people IN THIS PARTY, fine, but denial will NOT solve the problem that it DOES cost us votes, it DOES cost us elections, and it IS NOT all RW noise! Shout and swear and get pissy about it as much as you want - brainwash yourself as much as you want - it still does NOT change the facts that, as a party, we NEED a NEW platform on this issue.

[Wickerman]

102. QUick, what is our platform?

[jmg257]

131. My platform is to support the Rights of the people, ALL the rights of ALL the people.

Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness, "Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land" & the amendment process, "Rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed", self-responsibility whenever possible, neighbor helping neighbor whenever needed, good education system, tough on criminals, health care coverage,

[qdemn7]

140. Gun Violence ad nauseum

I never see you using "Gun Violence" repeatedly. I see many other advocates of Gun Prohibition using this term, but I don't see the term "knife violence", "baseball violence" or "automobile violence" being used to describe crime committed by PEOPLE using these devices. I see the term "Gun Violence" used constantly, like a mantra, as if blaming an inanimate object for causing violence. THIS is avoiding responsibility for ones actions, since it's a lot easier to point a finger at a thing rather than say to a human being "what you did is wrong, a crime and is utterly unacceptable".

You want us to listen to what you have to say, you need to change your rhetoric and your mindset. We have a concept in this country know as "Innocent Until Proven Guilty", and I'm sicked and tired of being blamed for others misdeeds. When people get drunk and hit someone and kill them we don't blame the car, we rightly blame the person driving it.

To take your mindset and expand on it: Since we appear to have reached a hardcore element of drunk drivers who won't be stopped by anything less than permanent incarceration, some people are proposing MANDATORY breathalyzers in all cars. No matter the monetary cost to install, repair, or replace. No matter the fact the thing might malfunction and leave a person stranded.

You want to talk about "Justice"? "Justice" is punishing people who do things wrong FIRST, before talking any "social" implications.

Just how far are you willing to go in your quest for safety over freedom? That is the real issue.

[jody]

69. What Wickerman said! n/t

[Dukkha]

85. So the solution then is to go Green!

NOT!

http://wisconsingreenparty.org/blogs/CC/archives/000273.shtml

June 07, 2004
The Wisconsin Green Party has joined numerous national and state organizations in calling for Judiciary Chairman Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner to hold a hearing on the current assault weapons ban and proposals to renew and/or strengthen the law.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Green_Party_Gun_Control.htm

2000 campaign
We support the ‘Brady Bill’ and thoughtful, carefully considered GUN CONTROL.

[SJames]

149. 1968=1938 Nazi Gun Control

The 1968 platform states:

The federal government has come swiftly to the aid of cities needing help to bring major disturbances under control, and Democratic leadership secured the enactment of a new gun control law as a step toward putting the weapons of wanton violence beyond the reach of criminal and irresponsible hands.

<snip>

Promote the passage and enforcement of effective federal, state and local gun control legislation.

Dem. Sen. Thomas Dodd had the LOC translate the Nazi Germany gun laws of 1938 . And was instrumental in writing the GCA of 1968 using these Nazi laws as a guide line .

[SJames]

150. Paladin , you have the floor

If you dare ........................

[WAGGY]

151. get a grip

When will the left learn that when the the only people who sponser bills that restrict gun ownership are democrats, people will call them gun-grabbers. Just call a duck a duck. Now, I know all democrats don't want to restrict gun ownership but it is kinda hard not too believe that the ones who don't won't give in to pressure from other democrats on the issue. You know it is a, "I wash your back, you wash mine" thing in washington. If democrats would drop the whole gun subject they would not get labled as gun-grabbers. I feel that taking away or limiting a right from law abiding people in the name of safety is a white wash of the whole violence problem. I say get a life & do some good where it matters. Like, volunteer to drive disabled vets to the VA.

[krispos42]

155. Kick for the current debate n/t

[krispos42]

156. Kick for the current raging debate n/t

[krispos42]

158. Kicking for all the newbies

If you like it, comment!!! My leg is getting tired! :-)

[SteveM]

159. Oh, hell, I'll kick it!...

Seems like the summation of 50 years of Democratic Party positions on guns is this: Ban SOMETHING.

[gorfle]

161. And why is that?

One has to wonder, what is it that brought the evil "assault weapon" to the forefront? After all, handguns are used for far more murders than rifles of any kind.

Here's what I think:

They needed to look like they were getting tough on gun crime. They didn't want to go after handguns, because so many people owned them it might hurt them at the ballot box. And they didn't want to go after hunting weapons, and so piss off all the "legitimate" gun owners. They figured no one but a few fringe lunatics owned "assault rifles", and thus they were a negligible block of voters that could be sacrificed in the name of looking tough. Not to mention the fact that when you put up a picture of a civilian semi-automatic AK-47 variant on TV you look like you are really taking dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals - putting a Ruger Mini-14 on TV wouldn't look nearly as exciting.

I think they picked on "assault weapons" because even though they are hardly ever used in crime they sound dangerous, they look dangerous, and they thought no one would mind if they were banned.

They were wrong.

[EricTeri]

162. Hammer. Nail. Head. n/t

[benEzra]

163. Yup. And I think they underestimated their ownership rates even in 1994...

never mind 2004. The Bradyites have peddled the "gun owner = hunter" meme for a long time, and I think the party leadership in '94 simply had no idea that the majority of gun owners aren't hunters.

"Assault weapon" owners now outnumber hunters by a comfortable margin, taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, and are gaining on handgun ownership.

Probably the fastest growing segment of the shooting sports these days is IDPA/IPSC style shooting with small- and intermediate-caliber carbines, along with 3-gun (pistol, rifle, shotgun). My local club has switched one of their bimonthly IPSC pistol matches to carbine due to shooter demand, and there is also a lot of 3-gun picking up around here.

[krispos42]

164. I heard it might have been another DLC idea

I think benEzra had proof of that, but I'm not sure. I might not be recalling it correctly. Anybody know?

[bossy22]

165. I dont understand

the DLC's love for the AWB