Draft of the 2008 Democratic platform -- Gun stuff

[Redneck Socialist]

"Firearms
12 We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,
13 and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use
14 firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but
15 we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together
16 to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show
17 loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons
18 ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly
19 and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional
20 right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

Full text of the draft here: http://www.workinglife.org/storage/users/4/4/images/111/2008%20democratic%20platform%20080808.pdf

Looks like the "assault weapon" language is going to remain and that they added some nonsense about the "gun show loophole." Oh and guns apparently magically "fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals." Interesting the folks in Cheyenne apparently have a different set of rights than people in Chicago.

Jeebus, I wish we, as a party, would remain silent on this rather than keep shooting ourselves in the foot. :banghead:

[xchrom]

1. not me -- i will always vote for gun control candidates and legislation. nt

[Dimensio0]

13. Why?

Are you a criminal, seeking to make your livelihood less dangerous?

[hendo]

20. My guess would be yes

Why don't people realize that the onle people effected by gun control laws are the law abiding citizens. Criminals will still get thier hads on guns no matter what.

[xchrom]

27. 'effected' -- yeah -- 'effected' -- sort of says it all right there. nt

[hendo]

29. oo, a grammar cop

Its nice to know thats where you turn when you have nothing else to say.

[xchrom]

26. right. that's the reason.

:eyes:

[Dimensio0]

31. It is curious that you have made such a candid admission.

However, I will acknowledge that it is the most rational justification for increased firearms regulation that I have heard.

[Xenotime]

93. As will I. This week's tragedy only highlights why they must be regulated.

[SteveM]

114. And why we Democrats just gots to lose more elections (nt)

[Doug.Goodall]

95. I'm with you xchrom, a Democrat in favor of gun control is going to get my vote 100% of the time

The United States has far too many gun held by private owners. We need to vastly reduce the number of guns in this country and strictly limit quick and ready access to guns.

[pipoman]

96. Have a plan?

"We need to vastly reduce the number of guns in this country.."

Or is this the "if wishes were fishes" game?

[Doug.Goodall]

101. No, I don't have a plan. That is why I will vote for a Democrat that does have a plan n/t

[pipoman]

103. How about linking up to that plan and that Democrat?

I mean I spend a fair amount of time here at DU and have not seen a candidate with a plan to:

"We need to vastly reduce the number of guns in this country.."

[Doug.Goodall]

105. Okay, I can see this coming (again)

I don't like guns. As opposed to some gun owners, and gun opponents, I do have a life and I refuse to spend hours each day performing research on this subject. I detect you are about to steam roll me with reams of complied data and smooth logical arguments constructed through years of intense debate.

If you see this as your chance to hammer me over gun issues, I will just concede right now. I do not have the debate skills to carry my side of the argument. And I still don't like guns.

[pipoman]

106. Thats OK

I am not the militant type of debater. I understand your position, I disagree, but understand. My real problem with your position is two fold. First I don't believe the Party should ever advocate the usurpation of any rights, on the contrary, I believe that Democrats should always be on the side of the absolute most liberal interpretation of all rights, dog knows pugs will not. Second I don't believe that prohibition of any kind ever works, it only results in growth of our already ridiculous prison industrial complex. Examples would be drugs in this country and guns in countries like Mexico. Mexico having a prohibition against private ownership of guns has resulted in criminals importing guns, including large amounts of cheap automatic weapons from South America. Right now if a crime is committed with a gun in the US there are pretty good systems in place to trace the gun, if the guns were being smuggled in as I strongly feel they would be there would be no way to trace them and they would likely be automatic weapons which are not a problem in the US now.

[one-eyed fat man]

107. it is absolutely OK.........

...........for you to not like guns, no one is forcing you to have one.

You can think all you want that you can magically pass another law and crooks will quit using guns. You can even imagine that somehow you could collect them all up and the knowledge of how to drill a hole in a piece of steel is going to disappear from human conciousness, however, your belief that earth is flat, that unicorns exist, or that somehow passing another law is NEVER going to prevent another pyschopath from, well, "going pyscho."

The Brady Law and background check for a time resulted in almost weekly pronouncements of ".... (gazillions and ever increasing) felons prevented from buying a gun." (Like they didn't go and buy one from their crack dealer 20 minutes later.)

As it happens, the mere attempt of a felon to buy a gun is a felony in and of itself, yet the Attorney General of the United States sputters in Congressional testimony when asked why out of nearly a million checks over 3 years there were only 12 prosecutions. Her response was "that law was symbolic, that it was NEVER intended to prosecute..." criminals for a criminal act.

Imagine if a traffic light were "merely symbolic!"

Or worse, imagine that the government, and ONLY the government has access to guns. Does it look any different if it's the Chinese Army at Tiananmen Square, Chicago cops at the '68 convention or 'Bull' Conner at the bridge at Selma?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. Is that a good reason to restrict other law abiding citizens freedoms?

I don't like people using profanity in front of small children. I don't like teenage drivers. I don't like chicken liver. I guess I could try and get the government to make people be 25 before they could drive or limit free speech, it just doesn't seem quite right to do that.

David

[bossy22]

97. guess you havent heard of the second amendment

but that doesnt matter...its alright to through away rights if you believe they are not necessary or dont agree with them

[Doug.Goodall]

102. Yes, I have read the Second Amendment, and I know about the Heller ruling

Times, attitudes, technology and population density have change since the late 1700. It is become apparent to me that the current laws regulating the private ownership of guns need to be made more restrictive.

[tburnsten]

98. Great plan!

Come and get 'em buddy!










You should probably take the bullets first though, just to be sure us civilian gun owners can't shoot before they are taken from us!

[ManiacJoe]

99. Please define "quick and ready access".

What is wrong with the current "number of guns"? Or did you really mean "number of illegally possessed guns"?

[Doug.Goodall]

104. A gun used by a drunk in a fit of rage to shoot his wife was quickly accessible and ready

I hear numbers like 300,000,000 guns for 80,000,000 gun owners.

For the people of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, one shotgun was one too many.

For Bill Gwatney, one handgun was one too many.

[ManiacJoe]

108. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between

criminals and law-abiding citizens.

Those numbers come to 3.75 guns per owner on average. 1 rifle, 1 shotgun, 1-2 handguns would be a slow start on any "collection" but a complete set for utility work.

[one-eyed fat man]

121. new FBI study

See post and link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x183326

[beevul]

2. Insanity.

Repackaging the same turd in different and slightly more shiny wrapping, and expecting anything to change because of it.

This reminds me of the "repackaging" of "gun control" as "gun safety". Nobody bought it.


Sigh.

[virginia mountainman]

3. FAIL.....

[spin]

4. Reinstate the assault weapons ban?

Ban all those evil looking guns again? Hell of a lot a good that did on the first go around and look how the Republicans were able to get out the pro-gun votes against Democratic "gun grabbers".

If your party is constantly on the wrong side of the issues, you can expect to lose close elections.

Most gun knowledgeable voters understand that the weapons banned under the assault weapons ban were merely semi-auto weapons which cosmetically resemble military weapons. And when you consider the number of gun owners who have some knowledge to extensive knowledge of firearms you face an uphill battle to get their votes when you play word games such as defining semi-auto rifles to be assault weapons.

According to our survey, 38% of households reported at least one firearm in the home and 26% of adults reported owning at least one gun. This corresponds to 42 million households with firearms and 57 million adult gun owners. We found that 64% of gun owners or 16% of adults reported owning at least one handgun; 80% of gun owners or 20% of all adults owned a long gun
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15



Obama, being an Illinois politician already has a problem convincing the pro-gun crowd that he would not oppose gun ownership. No need to exacerbate this problem further. Admittedly, Obama would have had a hard time winning elections in Illinois had he held a pro-gun position.

Most gun owners would not oppose reasonable and logical restrictions that would prevent criminal, irresponsible individuals and people with dangerous mental problems from legally obtaining firearms, and they would be in favor of laws that would punish criminals caught with guns in a draconian manner. Adopting this position will gain votes for Democrats.

Terrorists could easily smuggle real assault weapons into the country if they chose to, bypassing any laws we would implement. The assault weapons ban wouldn't deter them in any manner.

In the past the Democratic Party has often said that it doesn't oppose firearm ownership for hunting or sporting purposes however:

When respondents were asked, "What is the one most important reason that you own a handgun/long gun?" the most common response among those who owned a handgun was for self-defense (46%), followed by sport shooting (hunting or target shooting) or collecting (25%). Owners of long guns overwhelmingly reported sport shooting as the "most important" reason to own a long gun
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15

Since most states allow some form of concealed or open carry, Democrats need to realize that a considerable number of voters own handguns for self defense. The people in these states voted for the current laws and none of these states have chosen to revoke those laws because of bad results.



http://www.moccw.org/map.html

I agree with Redneck Socialist that as a party we need to "remain silent on this rather than keep shooting ourselves in the foot."

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. If there's a reinstatement, it won't be pretty

There'll be no expiration date, it'll be permanent.

And it will ban a lot more than just cosmetic features.

It might even be retro-active, so "pre-ban" guns have to conform.

And it will cost seats in Congress.

[Tejas]

54. Yep,

and people laughed at the urban-legend known as the "5 year plan". The VPC will be all over this like stink on.....


:(

[OrdinaryGuy84]

115. I know what you mean. I am stocking up already for another "assault weapon" ban...

Just bought an AK. I hope to have at least 2,000 rounds of 7.62x39 and 9mm by November and at least a dozen or so AK 30 round magazines. I suggest you gun owners out there do the same soon because if another ban comes down the pipe everything gun related is going to jump in price big time. :( 7.62 ammo is already going up.

[jody]

5. If the draft survives, it will suggest the Dem Party cannot be trusted to protect the 2nd. n/t

[biermeister]

6. I agree

[one-eyed fat man]

15. not quite....

it will PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT, that the Democratic Party cannot be trusted to protect the Second Amendment. It will undercut the pro-gun Blue Dogs as they try to convince voters they will really go against the national leadership when it comes time to vote.

Almost funny, virulently anti-gun hacks and all they do is shoot the party in the foot! Losing elections since 1994 and no sign of getting a bit smarter!

[bossy22]

7. purely political

i hate the assault weapons mantra...its just another lie pushed on the american people

Im surprised they didnt mention anything about the "no fly no buy" bill...the bill that says anyone who is on the terror watch list loses their right to own a gun

remember its okay to strip someone of their rights without due process as long as it is a right that you dont agree with

:sarcasm:

[iverglas]

8. speaking of jeebus

Oh and guns apparently magically "fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."

Maybe he can help you out with that apparent reading comprehension problem.

15 ... We can work together
16 to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show
17 loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons
18 ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. ...

[Tejas]

55. of which none of your post worked then, nor in the future.

[iverglas]

62. uh

Uh. Words fail me. As, apparently, they do you.

[TPaine7]

9. Terminal. Stupidity.

[slackmaster]

10. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I have no problem with anything that is truly reasonable or dictated by common sense ('cause as you all know I am a reasonable, sensible person), but the AW ban was a pointless restriction on peoples' choices.

The most significant result of the AW ban was a mobilization and radicalization of gun rights advocates. With the lessons of history available to all of us online, how can anyone be so foolish as to think the same thing wouldn't happen again?

[benEzra]

11. More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt.

The perpetuation of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is inexcusable, and somebody needs to be called on it. Other than that, it's decent, I think.

I guess this shows that the DLC still runs the platform show.

[DonP]

21. Stuck in the '90's

It seems the "deep thinkers" at the DLC haven't been reading the newspapers, talking to the new Blue Dog Dems in congress, or reading any Supreme Court decisions lately.

Based on the language they seem to be choosing, they are going all the way back to the DLC "glory days" of 1993 and trying to relive their youth. You know, the glory days where we lost the house for the first time in almost 40 years after a handful of them pushed this thing through. Good plan!

Nothing like handing your opponents all the ammunition they are looking for.

[SteveM]

84. This is very hard-line culture war. The DLC won't change...

The mind-set of Democratic Party "leaders" is very anti-gun, very anti- self-defense, and very suspicious of Americans whose support they can't get. These attitudes won't change until these "leaders" are replaced in the Democratic Party, and the Party will be a nearly worthless instrument of change and reform until then.

They are quite dug-in and will not compromise.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Doing the same thing over again and expecting different results

Let's see how well this particular faith-based initiative fares...

[jody]

16. H.R. 1022 and S.2237 cosponsored by Kerry are now irrevocably linked to the 2008 Dem platform.

ON EDIT ADD: party and state for sponsors

H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007
Sponsors all Democrats
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA)
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Rep. William Clay (D-MO)
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA)
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA)
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA)
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Rep. James Langevin (D-RI)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA)
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Rep. James McGovern (D-MA)
Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL)
Rep. Bradley Miller (D-NC)
Rep. James Moran (D-VA)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Del. Eleanor Norton (D-DC)
Rep. John Olver (D-MA)
Rep. William Pascrell (D-NJ)
Rep. Edward Pastor (D-AZ)
Rep. David Price (D-NC)
Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA)
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA)
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)
Rep. John Tierney (D-MA)
Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA)
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-MD)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA)
Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC)
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD)

H.R. 1022 has several controversial provisions among which are:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

S.2237 Subtitle B--Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007
Sponsors all Democrats
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Robert Menéndez (D-NJ)

Obama may survive but the draft Dem platform could cost seats in the House in states that value the Second Amendment.

[one-eyed fat man]

22. the killer sentence!

".....a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency..."

The Remington 1100 shotgun, the Browning Auto-5, all guns used by both the military and Fed law enforcment over the pas 80 years. Once the sporting clays and skeet shooting crowd realize that the new and improved assault weapons ban cover their guns too, not just 'them evil black rifle barrel shroud, thingies'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

This level of ignorance is not natural! It takes native talent and years of dedicated practice to be this stupid.

Nothing like making it easier for the blue collar, union guy who looks forward to his couple weeks a year in deer camp to swallow hard and decide a pro gun Repub is preferable to an anti-gun Democrat. Every pro-gun Democratic candidate in November 2006 won over a pro-gun 'thug. How plain does it have to be before the Party leadership realizes once and for all, gun control is costing us elections?

[virginia mountainman]

25. It goes even deeper than that..

"...or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes.."

That line right their, could easily be construed to ban the vast majority of guns.

Notice, it says a firearm...Nothing about it being a semi-automatic... And notice, it goes on to say that ANY, firearm procured for use the military or ANY Federal Law enforcement agency, is NOT particularly suitable for sporting purposes...

PRACTICALLY ALL, Modern weapons, are military desines...EVEN YOUR GRAN PA'S Lever action 30-30 was used as a military weapon when it first came out.

[brolin_1911a1]

33. Deeper? It's Total!!!

I am able to think of only a single firearm type that has not been either used by the military at one time or derived from an action design intended for military use. I do not believe that the hinging break-action single-shot has been used by the military. Any other design, beginning with any muzzle loading firearm, going to the falling block and rolling block or trap door single-shots, along with the lever action and bolt action repeaters were all designed for military use first. Semi-autos were first sold commercially around the end of the 19th century and not adopted by the military until the 1930s. But they were most definitely used by the military. Pump/slide actions? I can't think of any that were originally intended for military use but the old Winchester 1912 and many shotguns since all used that action. Heck, even the 15th century matchlock would be banned under this language.

[tburnsten]

44. Winchester 1897

Was very well used in both world wars weren't they? And the Mossberg 500/590 is our issue shotgun for ordinary troops, who don't have a command buying them M1014's.

That language is basically a statement that the sponsors would ban gun after gun until finally they were into the blackpowder terrain, and they'd ban all those as well, because there is absolutely zero difference between civilian and military small arms developement, they have followed each other for centuries and they always will, because they are so interrelated. Want a good firearm? Just get a semi-only version of whatever your nation's military is using, then you have millions of dollars worth of testing and developement ensuring you have a solid, high-quality firearm.

[one-eyed fat man]

60. longer than that

We had both M1897 and Model 12 Winchester shotguns in our battalion arms room in Viet Nam in 1968-1970.

[tburnsten]

61. Superb

I wonder how long the 500/590 will be slung on our troops backs? I have some of the Winchester Military Grade 9-pellet 00 load, it is really neat looking stuff. I like the Ranger low-recoil 9-pellet more though.




Both punch through an ammo can with no troubles.


What sort of loads were our shotgun equipped soldiers using back in Vietnam era?

[one-eyed fat man]

79. ammo

In RVN we were getting 00 buck, nine pellet, in all brass cases (a lot of it loaded during WW2.) Paper shotgun hulls sucked in the tropics. We also had a buckshot round for the M79 but it would only dent an ammo can at 10 paces. Truthfully, the shotgun was good if there was nothing but air between you and the target, and not too much of that. Those nine pellets were spread around a 4 foot circle at 40 yards. However, at room clearing ranges, it is devastating.

The modern military grade plastic hulls shoot better patterns than the all brass case unbuffered loads did.

Riot control was 1-1/8 ounce, 7-1/2 birdshot. The drill was to bounce it off the pavement into their legs.

Guarding prisoners, on work detail or from the stockade towers, MP's used #4 buckshot.

There was a special manufacturing run of M1917 bayonets in 1969 just for the Winchester shotguns in use.

[JustinBuist]

67. You forgot the M79

"I am able to think of only a single firearm type that has not been either used by the military at one time or derived from an action design intended for military use. I do not believe that the hinging break-action single-shot has been used by the military."

The M79 "bloop gun" is a hinging break-action single shot. It's really just an overgrown break-action shotgun.

[tburnsten]

42. How else could it be determined?

"and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'."

Well if the fact that a specific firearm is useful for a sporting event isn't the way we determine if a firearm is suitable for sporting purposes, then how could we ever determine whether or not it is a suitable sporting weapon? I suppose the default would just be to go with whatever is seen as politically correct, or what the Attorney General pleases.

[jody]

46. I wonder how former Attorney General Janet Reno would rule given such blanket authority? n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

59. like Lloyd Bensten.........

Back in 1993,the Steetsweeper and the USAS-12 couldn't be imported for civilians and were being manufactured in the USA. Lloyd Bentsen jumped in and stopped all that by simply declaring them Destructive Devices.

Project Forward Trace obtained manufacturer's records, FFL distributor's names and subsequent owner's I.D.s to force registration or confiscation. At one point, they even dropped the CLEO signoff requirement to go with the $200 TAX exemption during the amnesty that has long ago expired.

ANY 12 ga shotgun has the potential to be reclassified as a DD because it has a bore diameter of 1/2" or more and could be declared at some point to be NON-SPORTING! Back then it was the Secretary of the Treasury who could do that since the ATF was under Treasury.

But the bottom line is that any 12 ga shotgun COULD become fair game on a whim!

[SteveM]

85. Giving the AG authority is a fine relic of the McCarthy era...

when the AG was given authority to list "terrorist" organizations whose membership could suffer restrictions. My guess is that Janet Reno would have listened long and hard to whatever the gun-control groups wanted and acted accordingly. That's what happens when due process goes out the window.

[Tejas]

110. let's hope it wouldn't be these people

Same old clueless crowd that gets exposure for their fantasies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ




For those still learning, there is no such thing as a "heat seeking" bullet.

Rockets - yes
Missiles - yes


Bullets - no


An "incindinary device" does not track heat, it causes the heat (upon contact with the target) that something else will track.

[biermeister]

129. another reason the senator from nj

won't get my vote next time

[gorfle]

17. Depressing

It basically puts down in writing that the Democratic party is, effectively, anti-firearm.

12 We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,
13 and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use
14 firearms.

What needs to be addressed in a forthright manner is this: use for what purpose?

We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but
15 we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.

This is a cop-out. Constitutional right should apply equally across the nation. We don't allow the South to continue to have Jim Crow laws. There needs to be comprehensive national respect for the right to keep and bear arms.

We can work together
16 to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show
17 loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons
18 ban,

Well here we get to the meat of it. The "gun show loophole" is private firearm transactions. You can't close the gun dhow loophole without regulating private firearm transfers.

Any document that puts "ban" and "firearms" in the same mission statement is going to cost the Democratic part votes. Of all the weapons possessable by The People, assault weapons are the closest to the kind our founders intended The People to own, as they most closely approximate the weapons of the armed forces that The People are intended to counterbalance. Not to mention the fact that rifles are hardly ever used in crime. Of all the weapons to ban, "assault weapons" are the least to worry about.

Who is responsible for composing this draft and the final document? I want to write to them.

[jeepnstein]

18. Dumb. That's my party...

Another AWB is going to do nothing but cost votes in states we cannot afford to lose. You can only be the vanguard of the masses if they'll follow where you wish to lead.

The Party is dominated by people in positions of influence who do not have the slightest idea of what everyday Americans face.

[gorfle]

19. Who to contact concerning this draft

Here is the web page for the lady chairing the Platform Drafting Committee:

Governor Janet Napolitano (AZ)

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=63

I suggest writing your opinion to her.

[jody]

23. OK but another approach for all pro-RKBA Dems is to write Obama and tell him to pledge to veto every

bill that infringes upon RKBA beginning with H.R. 1022.

Don't ask, DEMAND!

If Obama will not make that pledge, then he remains a threat to sign bills that destroy RKBA one piece at a time.

The raw facts are gun-grabbers lost big time with Heller but they will continue their efforts to disarm law-abiding citizens while allowing criminals to arm themselves.

The war now shifts to gun-grabbers using technology such as registering every bullet to make RKBA an onerous task hoping we pro-RKBA types will eventually give up.

I've got bad news for gun-grabbers, they picked a fight with the wrong group of patriotic Americans.

[virginia mountainman]

24. Just checked my email....

HOLY SHIT, Today, I have received MANY, emails about this.

IMHO, they may have just tossed ANOTHER national election, the talk about the AWB has ignited a firestorm. Email lists are waking back up, and Activists, are starting to organize and plan strategy.

And these activists, have a 14 year track record of victory. ANd their actions will depend wholly on what Obama says about this....

And what do the idiots who are writing the party platform do?? Act like a fucking bug, being draw to Sara Brady's fucking bug zapper, Can't they control themselves any better than that??

I wonder what Obama will say about this?? Or will this be one more election year, where I spend my time helping the good, LOCAL, and STATE Democrats, who realize the inherent strength, in UPHOLDING the US Constitution, and not using the word "BUT" when talking about the Bill of Rights.

[pipoman]

28. Has anyone here heard any plan for

"closing the gun show loophole"?

I know most gungeon regulars understand the difficulty here, but just in case someone wanders through who doesn't...

The infamous "gun show loophole" is neither gun show exclusive nor a loophole, it is a term coined by the gun control usual suspects (Brady Bunch) to attempt to demonize gun shows and mislead those who don't follow this issue closely. In truth the "gun show loophole" refers to private intrastate transfers of personal property (firearms) between private individuals. These intrastate transfers may happen at garage sales, through the newspaper, between neighbors or family members, in the parking lot at the local police department, or anyplace else people choose to meet, thus it really has nothing to do with gun shows in particular. Firearms sold through federal firearms licensed dealers (FFL) must be submitted to and approved by the National Instant Check System (NICS) prior to delivery of the firearm to the purchaser. The NICS covers intrastate firearms transfers because a FFL dealer holds a federal license which makes that dealer subject to federal jurisdiction. A FFL dealer may only sell firearms to individuals (who do not have a FFL)who reside in the same state as the FFL. If an individual from another state wishes to purchase a firearm from a FFL in another state, the selling FFL must send the firearm to a dealer in the state of residence of the purchaser and the purchaser must retrieve the firearm and complete the transfer through NICS (plus comply with any other state restrictions) in their state of residence. If an individual wishes to purchase a firearm from another individual in another state federal regulations apply as the transaction would be an interstate transaction. The seller must take the firearm to an FFL in his/her home state, have the FFL send the firearm to a FFL in the purchaser's state where the purchaser must go to retrieve the firearm and complete the NICS process.

Which brings us back to one private citizen purchasing a firearm from another private citizen when both reside in the same state. To date, in spite of many great noodles noodling, and to the consternation of the Bradys and their ilk, nobody has been able to come up with a Constitutional way to bring these intrastate private transactions under federal jurisdiction. Some states have adopted legislation limiting these transactions but most have not, so in most states a person may buy a shotgun from their neighbor simply by getting together with the neighbor and exchanging funds for the gun.

Since the enactment of the NICS the gun conrol crowd has been howling about this issue, promising to close "the gun show loophole". If it was truly a "loophole" it could have been done long ago, since it isn't really a loophole at all, it is a constitutionally imposed limitation on the jurisdiction of the federal government, nobody has been able to figure out a way to usurp the Constitution to bring these transactions under federal authority. Short of an Amendment to the Constitution or passing separate legislation in each state, these transactions will never be subject to NICS no matter how much howling, clicking of heels, wiggling of noses, waving of magic wands or wishing upon stars, goes on.

To date there is no way for two people who live in the same state to access NICS even if they want to, short of voluntarily going to an FFL and paying what ever the FFL wishes to charge to transfer the gun from seller to buyer. I have said for a long time that if the NICS was made accessible on a voluntary basis for a very minimal fee or free of charge to anyone wishing to complete an intrastate firearms transfer, many would opt to do just that, especially when the transfer is happening between strangers who live in the same state. This could allow the buyer to be sure the firearm they are purchasing isn't stolen or being sought by police, and would allow the seller to be sure he/she is not transferring the firearm to a prohibited buyer. But alas this truly common sense measure hasn't even been proposed by the gun control crowd as I assume it simply isn't restrictive enough.

[jody]

30. Upon reflection, it's sad this topic cannot be discussed in DU's General Discussion: Presidential

forum even though we pro-RKBA DUers make up about 66% of regular members.

IMO Obama could resolve his problem by simply promising to veto every bill that infringes upon RKBA.

Obama could also force the platform committee to rewrite the passage dealing with firearms to say simply, "We support the Second Amendment" since SCOTUS has already said that's an individual right.

[brolin_1911a1]

32. A Constitutional "Tradition?"

12 We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,
13 and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use
14 firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation,...

To those of us in the US heartland, constitutionally protected rights are more than mere traditions. They are fundamental, unabridgable, unalienable rights.

The phrasing used in this draft immediately raises thoughts of what other Constitutionally-protected rights are mere tradition. The right to peaceful assembly? The right to free speech? Freedom of the press? The need for search warrants? This proposal reads as though the only 2nd Amendment right recognized by the Party leadership is the right to join the military.

In reality, the right to KEEP and bear arms is, as recognized by the Supreme Court during the 1800s, a fundamental right of any free citizen. It is more than a tradition. Rather it is a derivative of the basic right to life. Without means of self defense one cannot maintain one's life. When our Constitution's Bill of Rights was written, the only right with any claim to antiquity at that time was the right to keep and bear arms. The person who wrote that platform language has neither respect nor appreciation for the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.

[one-eyed fat man]

40. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In the 1860s, the 14th amendment was drafted and ratified with the aim of preventing Democrats from taking guns away from black people. 150 years later, what do you see in DC, Chicago, Detroit and NYC? Democrats taking guns away from black people, still pretending the 14th amendment doesn't exist.

This mealy-mouthed draft with it's glib, "....what works in Cheyenne might not work in Chicago...." What a crock!! One look at the Chicago news will show anyone how good "King Richard II's" ban is working.

This position WILL COST VOTES!!!!!!!

Is the party's slavish devotion to gun bans worth handing more victories to Republicans?

[Aventurier]

34. Insane

How many SKS/AR-15 owners are there? How many would vote against McCain were it not for the spectre of the AWB? In key states! Bad decision. We will not lose ONE SINGLE VOTE to McCain over the AWB. Dropping that provision would make us unstoppable, why does it keep getting in there? It's an albatross around our necks, a lodestone, a ridiculous, unscientific, irrational theory that the AWB was ever effective at making people more safe. Drat. I had my hopes up on that one.

[benEzra]

123. The number of "assault weapon" owners...

is somewhere between 15 million and 40 million, depending on how you define them, and whether or not you include over-10-round firearms in the definition. To put that into perspective, consider that only ~13 to 15 million people hunt in this country.

I read a few years ago that there were an estimated 7 million SKS's alone in civilian hands, and that was then. And from BATFE stats, it appears that at least 1 in 5 centerfire rifles sold in the USA annually is an AR-15, with least 33 different manufacturers making them. The AR-15 is the 1911 of civilian rifles.

Whenever I go to my local shooting range, around half the guns on the rifle side are generally "assault weapons" as defined by H.R.1022 et seq.

[Tejas]

35. dang it

What in the heck is wrong with those people?!!1!ONE!!

*heads to fleamarket to buy more AK drums before HOMELAND SECURITY starts the confiscation.

[Jackeen]

36. Amazing. Absolutely bloody amazing.

What are these people drinking that they somehow look at the nation's statistics, and think that this is what the people want?

I have to quote from the 1996 platform.

"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."

Sacrificed their seats in Congress... Well, if they're determined to fall on their swords, there's not a hell of a lot we can do about it except start the funeral preparations.

[iamthebandfanman]

37. i believe in transparent government

with no need for assault weapon armed citizens.

idealy in a democracy, there should be no reason for armed revolt or revolution.

granted as of late you wouldnt know that.

sorry, i support assault weapon bans...

[pipoman]

38. Problem is

there is not a single definition of "assault weapon", in fact the previous AWB, and likely any future AWB bans only based on cosmetics. The mechanics of the so called assault weapon is exactly the same as my 3rd generation deer hunting rifle bought by my dad in 1956. It is like banning cars with shiny wheels, tail fins and red paint. Whats more the previous AWB cost our party more seats and elections than any other single issue in the last 50 years. Further the guns included in the last AWB were the most popular sporting guns in the US which in turn effected more people than if they would have imposed a hunting ban. Is the AWB, considering the relatively small number of crimes committed with these guns, really worth loosing control of the Senate, Congress or the Presidency over?

[Jackeen]

39. If you can explain just why Evil Black Rifles should be banned...

And how to describe them legally, in a manner which would specifically identify them, I'd be very curious to hear it. Not moral platitudes like "They're killing machines" but good, technical, definitive reasoning as to why black rifles with sticky-out bits are particularly more dangerous than brown rifles without sticky-out bits.

[jeepnstein]

41. We don't live in an ideal world.

The sad fact of the matter is that our government is not the least concerned with our safety or security. If you are not worthy of a special security detail or able to pay someone to look after your safety, you're on your own. We are experiencing what our government could easily become right now. Do you think the people in power in the White House give a darn whether you live or die? Do you seriously believe they will come to your aid in the event of a disaster? Have they shown even the slightest interest in protecting anyone but themselves from crime? Why are people so willing to continue to surrender their Constitutional Rights?

[benEzra]

45. Do you support bans on "subversive speech" too?

After all, there is no need for responsible citizens to engage in "subversive speech," right? Or to read "subversive books"? Problem is, if the Moral Majority gets to define what is considered "subversive", then you might have a First Amendment problem, no?

Sorry, more Americans lawfully own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt, using the gun-ban lobby's definition of the term. Fighting to ban the most popular civilian rifles in America is politically counterproductive, and makes no sense given that less than 3% of murders in the USA involve ANY type of rifle.

This is an "assault weapon" according to the repubs at the Brady Campaign:



So is this, the most popular centerfire target rifle and defensive carbine in the United States:



We'll keep them, thanks.

[gorfle]

47. The problems with your position.

i believe in transparent government

with no need for assault weapon armed citizens.

idealy in a democracy, there should be no reason for armed revolt or revolution.

granted as of late you wouldnt know that.

sorry, i support assault weapon bans...

You defeat your own argument with your own caveats.

Yes, ideally in a democracy there should be no reason for armed revolt or revolution. But we don't live in an ideal world. Just as you say - as of late you would look at the last 8 years and see that we are slipping closer to revolution and not further away from it. We are seeing the erosion of civil liberties at an increasing pace, and increasing nationalism and totalitarianism. If this tide cannot be turned at the ballot box, what then? I'll tell you what then - the fail-safe our founders embedded in the Constitution will trip.

[Dimensio0]

49. What is the rational basis for your support?

Why should civilians be legally barred from owning "assault weapons". Additionally, how do you define "assault weapon", and what do you propose be done regarding any such firearm currently already legally owned by civilians?

[Boomer 50]

57. Ideally, you are correct.... realistically though.....

We have to deal with people like Bush. The idea of revolution is repugnant to the core but we must aways be ready should someone overstep the bounds to the point where we have no choice. The Republicans are always claiming worry over Democrats, well, the reverse is true.

By supporting gun bans, you are basically telling people like Bush that he is free to continue to strip us of our rights. Is this what you want?

There are good and bad on both sides. I am distressed that my party feels that the 2nd Amendment is a right of convenience that they can infringe upon whenever they want. We are going to lose big time this year if that draft becomes the platform. We'll get four, maybe eight years of McCain because our leaders are proving that they are brain damaged.

[Recursion]

83. You don't know what an "assault weapon" is

But you're so blinkardly sure we need to ban them that you're willing to throw this election to promise it.

You are why Democrats lose elections.

[SteveM]

86. Why do you support an AWB when a Remington 742 isn't mentioned?...

This particular firearm is an auto-loader capable of firing .30-06 ammunition (used for hunting). The standard AR 15 (and others sought in these "bans") fires a much less-powerful round.

Isn't it really about looks and style and what you've seen on T.V. cop shows?

[EstimatedProphet]

91. I believe in an ideal democracy it wouldn't matter if someone owned a gun

The Swiss somehow make this work. There's no need for a gun ban there.

[Blaubart]

127. ..and I believe...

In a world where the police can protect citizens before they're harmed by bad guys.

...or better yet, a world where there are no bad guys.

But we don't live in such a world and until then, guns can help keep criminals from victimizing law abiding citizens.

[Blaubart]

128. Oh yeah...

One more thing...

"Idealy<sic> in a democracy..."

What kind of government do you believe we have here in America?

[old mark]

43. Several problems. but in the right direction.

There is no "Gun Show Loophole", and there is no need for another bullshit "Assault Weapons Ban".
The "Ban" did not ban anything - it stated a certain number of features that would prohibit a rifle from being imported. Importers and manufacturers bought up many thousands of rifles that had these "evil" features, such as bayoned lugs, hand grips, etc. and they became "pre-ban" models, sold for many times the price they went for before the "ban". Then the manufacturers changed a few features to comply with the forbidden items, and imported the modified rifles,again sold for a much higher price (and profit) than the old models.

If they were to ban REAL assault weapons, there would be little problem - these are capable by definition of firing full automatic, like a machine gun, and are already banned from import. The semi-auto (1 shot per pull of the trigger) copies of the AK rifles, all military rifles that cannot fire in full auto mode and ALL SKS rifles ARE NOT and by definition never were "assault rifles".

The Gun Show nonsense was shown to be a non-issue in an FBI report on guns used by criminals, which indicated that fewer than 5% of all guns used in crimes were bought at gun shows. This report was published online by the FBI in the late 1990's, so I guess the anti-gun folks haven't got around to reading it yet. Or maybe they just don't like it, so they ignore it.

mark

[derby378]

48. E-mail the Platform Committee TODAY

[email protected]

I spoke face-to-face with one member of the Platform Committee to tell him we do not want any gun bans in the 2008 platform. No promises, of course, but at least he listened and took notes. If any of you can get in touch with a Platform Committee member, please do so.

[benEzra]

50. Just sent them the following:

Fighting to ban the most popular small-caliber civilian rifles in the United States does NOT help Dems here in NC, or in other swing states.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, less than 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle, including those the repubs at the Brady Campaign call "assault weapons."

PLEASE remove the call for new rifle bans from the 2008 party platform. More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons," so called, than hunt, and half of us are Dems and indies. 4 out of 5 gun owners are nonhunters, and the guns you wish to ban are the most popular centerfire target rifles and defensive carbines in the nation.

The "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme launched in 1994 was finally laid to rest in 2006. Please don't resurrect it with the '08 platform. Leave it to the states, and let's focus on the issues that are truly important.

Thank you for your time, and have a good day.

[derby378]

52. Thank you!

Short, sweet, and to the point. Thanks for reminding the Platform Committee that the objective in November is to win the election.

[Tejas]

56. "Thanks for reminding the Platform Committee that the objective in November is to WIN the election."

Appreciate the giggle, that made my day, hopefully they'll get the message!

:)

[one-eyed fat man]

58. reports of death premature

The "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme launched in 1994 was finally laid to rest in 2006."

Gun control has been in the Democratic platform since 1968. It was the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban in 1993 that made people realize the Party really was out to take your guns. It was not laid to rest in 2006 or we wouldn't be having this discussion over that anti-gun plank in the 2008 platform.

What happened in 2006 is pro-gun Democrats won all on their own. The national leadership still is perceived as virulently anti-gun and it will take something like a national CCW reciprocity bill sponsored by Democrats, passed by Democrats and signed into law by a Democrat to prove differently.

Frankly, I don't see the chance of that happening, but merely not mentioning "gun control" is not enough! It does nothing to dispel the "gun-grabber Dem" meme.

[jody]

51. Following benEzra's lead, I just sent in the email below.

I am deeply concerned about the “THE DRAFT 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PLATFORM, RENEWING AMERICA’S PROMISE” that advocates reinstating the assault weapons ban (AWB).

There is no solid evidence that reinstating the AWB will reduce violent crime.

In spite of that lack of evidence law-abiding citizens in Alabama view bills like H.R. 1022 “Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007” sponsored by 66 Democratic congresspersons as a threat to our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

H.R. 1022 has a controversial provision that allows an Attorney General to ban any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun used by military or Federal law enforcement agencies. That includes such popular firearms as the Remington model 1100, perhaps 4 million, used for self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. Such language perpetuates the myth that Democrats are gun-grabbers out to ban all firearms.

That means my Democratic candidate Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright running for Alabama’s 2nd congressional district seat has to explain to voters that he disagrees with the National Democratic Party that promises to reinstate the AWB.

Bright will have to promise to vote against such bills as H.R. 1022 and any other bill that infringes upon a citizen’s “right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state” as stated in Alabama’s Constitution and protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It’s expensive for any Democratic candidate to fight a Republican candidate in the general election.

It’s downright stupid for the national party to take a position on a divisive, polarizing issue like the AWB and force a Democratic candidate to fight against the National Democratic Party in addition to the Republican candidate.

Enough already please remove all reference to the assault weapons ban from the 2008 Democratic National Platform.

[derby378]

53. Well done!

Our candidates shouldn't let the platform speak for them on gun rights if the platform is opposition to the Second Amendment, especially in light of DC v. Heller. Thank you!

[SteveM]

82. I sent an e-mail to Platform Committee yesterday (nt)

[Moderator]

63. I sent in my letter

To whom it may concern,

I am writing about the 2008 Democratic Party platform, more specifically, regarding the DNC's platform plank on civilian firearm ownership.

I read the plank on DemocraticUnderground.com, where I post as "krispos42" (I'm also a moderator) and have found it to be very lacking. It also contains language that preys on the ignorance of the general public, such as "gun show loophole" and "assault weapon", both of which are arbitrary, perjorative terms used to bias the framing of an argument in the same fashion as "death tax" or "partial birth abortion".

Gun owners are fully aware of this smoke-and-mirrors argument, and since gun owners comprise about 40% of the general population, this is not productive at all towards bringing in independents.

In fact, this approach is actually counter-productive, and l'll explain why.

The reason some liberals want to control guns is because of what author and professor of cognitive linguistics George Lakoff terms the "nurturent parent" model. Basically, liberals want to protect society from violence and since guns are often used in violence and crime, gun control laws are part of protecting society. It becomes a common and seemingly logical belief.

Furthermore, the assumption by many liberals is that gun control equals crime control. However, a check on British and Australian crime and homicide rates shows no correlation at all between their bans and confiscations and their crime rate. It is true that in the UK, their *gun* homicide rate is at record lows, however their *overall* homicide rate is at near-record highs.

And domestically, you can look at California, Chicago, New York City, and DC as the ongoing failures of gun control.

The result in the UK is exactly what would happen here in the US if a politician banned the sale and ownership of red-painted cars: accidents, injuries, and deaths related to red-painted cars would go down. But only a fool would go on TV and claim that the reduction in red-painted-car-related injuries or deaths was making our highways safer.

The problems of crime are inheirently social and economic, not a matter of hardware. People don't commit crimes because they own guns. It's not a motivating factor. It's a means, a method, but not a motivation.

The best proven cure for the inheirent social and ecnomic troubles is by sticking and advancing our traditional liberal agenda, which includes many elements that Europeans have had for decades and indeed take for granted. Such things include:

• Universal single-payer health care
  
• Cheap or free higher education for everybody
  
• Returning to a tariff-based international trade policy
  
• Withdrawing from NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO
  
• Dramatically increasing union membership
  
• Quality public schools
  
• Return of the single-income middle class
  
• Legalization of recreational drugs
  
• Treating drug addiction as a medical condition, not a crime
  
• Progressive income taxes

I'm sure there are many more, but that's the gist of it.

But in order to get this stuff done, Democrats have to be in power. And by catering to a small but vocal minority of anti-gun people, Democrats get the worst of both world: they pass laws that don't affect crime or improve the social or economic condiditons, AND they get tossed to the curb by angry independents in swing states and congressional districts, putting neo-fascist Republican in positions of power.

And lets not forget these neo-fascist Republicans. The last thing the people running the Republican party want is armed Americans, and in particular armed liberals. It interfers with the authoritarian corporate state, after all. And I'm sure they spend a lot of time smirking at anti-gun Democrats as they do the GOPs work for them. Think about it: when gun-control laws pass, it is in "blue" states and "blue" cities, disarming those evil communist liberals. And then angry voters vote for Republicans, letting conservatives rape the treasury and the Constitution and amassing great with and power for themselves and their Party behind a smokescreen of PR and BS from our corporatist media and lapdog infotainment services.

So there we have it: not only does being anti-gun not solve in any way, shape, or form the crime problem and the underlying social and economic conditions, it actually prevents us from addressing the underlying problems because we keep getting voted out of office!



There are also factual arguments to be made: only a tiny percentage of homicides are committed with rifles at all, about 3%, and that includes both semi-automatic rifles that can be called 'assault weapons' by the 1993 federal definition and all other rifles that can't be called "assault weapons".

95%+ of all homicides only have one victim, so it seems that calling semiautomatic rifles "weapons of mass destruction" really has absolute no basis in fact at all. The specter of a lone gunman mowing down people like hay before a scythe is just that: a specter. A ghost. A rhetorical talking-point designed to scare people.

Since 1992, our homicide rate is down 40%. Other crime rates, such as robbery, rape, assault, carjacking, burglary, etc., are also down by similar amounts. During that time, the number, caliber, and types of firearms owned by the US citizen remained virtually unchanged.



Here are some graphs that I have made:









Keep in mind that the UK banned and confiscated "assault weapons" in 1989 and handguns in 1998.



I hope that this helps the DNC in making an intelligent plank in their 2008 platform.



FYI I've posted a copy of this letter on DU in the appropriate thread in the "Guns" forum.



Thank you very much,

<krispos42>



================
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Si Hoc Legere Scis, Nimium Eruditionis Habes

[iverglas]

64. hmm

I think you might have wanted to change posting mode, there.

I wouldn't think this is a post that should be written in the official capacity of "moderator".

[krispos42]

68. Oh, fuck!

:banghead:

How the hell did I do that?

[iverglas]

72. well,

sheer self-important pomposity, would be my guess.

;)

[krispos42]

76. No, I think I know what did it

I have a programmable keyboard. On the left side I have 18 programmable "G" keys. I programmed them to do shortcuts for this message board, such as boldface, italics,

1. ordered
   
2. lists
   
3. and

• unordered
  
• lists,
  

  this nice quote box,

  
  
  
  test that is _subscript and ^superscript, as well as strikethroughs.
  
  
  I also have one that I use exclusively to help me post alert messages faster and more accurately. It involves a longish line of characters, including a "tab" and a few "spaces". I hit that accidently when I was copying my letter in to the message box, and got a mess. I fixed the post itself, obviously, but I think the "tab" command and the spaces wound up checking the "Post as Moderator" option.
  
  Well, that's hindsight.
  

[jody]

65. Outstanding! The real value in such letters is their reasoned diversity drawn from our discussions

here on DU's Guns forum and elsewhere.

Their net worth is much greater than a petition. :thumbsup:

[one-eyed fat man]

66. Great letter..........

but I think you are tilting at windmills. The anti-gun folks are entrenched in the leadership positions and despite the losses you point out, they will never give up their loser position.

We can't even get a neutral position on guns into the platform. This is the best they have done in 40 years.

What is needed is deeds, not words. Democrat sponsored bill for nation reciprocity for CCW permit holders, passed by a Democrat Congress and signed into law in the Rose Garden by a Democrat President flanked by armed DC residents.

A pledge by Obama to do just that would win him states he cannot afford to lose.

[krispos42]

69. If you check out my Journal...

I did a post about the recent history of the Democratic Party platform regarding guns. This frantic gun-controlling thing only dates back about 20 years. Before that it was pretty relaxed.


Welcome to DU!

[one-eyed fat man]

70. only if you don't count Reconstruction

Gun control was a big issue down south. Mighty embarrassing when the Sheriff had an ass-full of buckshot and a Klan robe full of holes when some uppity share cropper took exception to night riders burning his field or killing his mule.

[krispos42]

77. Well, I went back 50 years or so.

benEzra has a post floating around the Gungeon about the racist roots of gun control, and there's some eyebrow-raising stuff in there from the New York Times about how the city has to disarm all the Italian immigrants. For example.

If you sort by author, you should be able to find it fairly easily.

[benEzra]

118. Here:

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[SteveM]

88. Sylvester Carrier knew something of gun-control in Rosewood, Florida:

"One , Minne Lee, was grabbed by Sylvester, pulled between his legs just as the front door burst open.

"Sylvester squeezed one of his triggers, and with a deafening blast, Poly Wilkerson fell back on the porch, shot through the face. A voice shouted, Sylvester fired again, and Henry Andrews dropped dead as well.

"Word swept to Sumner like the wind. A gun battle in Rosewood. White men shot dead by blacks..."

LIKE JUDGMENT DAY, The True Story of the Rosewood Massacre and its Aftermath," D'Orso Michael, Boulevard Books, NYC, 1996.

Andrews was the saw mill superintendent in Otter Creek; Wilkerson was the unofficial law enforcement in that area: a "quarters" boss for the black workers. Carrier owned or controlled over 1,000 acres for wood products, perhaps the largest holding for a black person in the region. The town was burned out in January, 1923, and the survivors evacuated by train through Gainesville.

[jody]

71. krispos42 given the first occurrence of "gun" in the 1968 Dem platform, do you believe it was

affected by Robert Kennedy's assassination June 6, 1968?

Note the platform was adopted August 26, 1968.

I reread your post The birth of the 'ban assault weapons' policy.

It's timely today as RKBA once again becomes an important issue in congressional elections as well as for president.

[one-eyed fat man]

73. giving the enemy ammo..........

I know the optimists here are CONVINCED the party has learned its lesson and will become a champion of the Second Amendment. But I am not so convinced, after all, if you met your wife while she was running around on her third husband, what makes you believe she'd going to stop now?

http://obamagun.blogspot.com/

Sure looks like these guys are working hard to keep reminding folks. The leadership knows their anti-gun policies are still costing us and they have made it an uphill fight.

[jody]

74. IMO ObamaGun is a Repug site. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

75. of course it is....

That's the point! We are just giving them ammunition. The platform is smugly anti-gun. The "what works in Cheyenne may not work in Chicago" line is directly out of one of Obama's stump speeches. He has NOT come out and pledged to veto any anti-gun legislation. We ARE giving them the issue to beat us over the head with. Like it or not, that's the way it is with the plank as it now stands! I go back to my premise that the hollow weasel worded support for RKBA in the 2008 platform needs to be backed up with ACTION! It's not too late for Democrats in Congress to pass meaningful pro-gun legislation and to have Obama pledge to sign it. Otherwise the voters will see still us like this:

[krispos42]

78. Almost certainly

Although this was 8 years before I was born.

But there were a rash of assassinations in the '60s. Two Kennedys, Dr. King, Malcom X, probably a lot more that I don't know about.

And the Gun Control Act of 1968 was that year as well, don't forget, in response to the JFK assassination.

[one-eyed fat man]

80. Senator Thomas J. Dodd, D-CT

As a senator from Connecticut, Dodd chaired committee hearings on bills "To Require Registration of Firearms" and to build a national firearms owner database.

As it happens, Senator Dodd owned personally a copy of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. Before the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68) was enacted, Senator Dodd asked the Library of Congress to translate his copy of that Law. A July 12, 1968 letter from the law librarian to Senator Dodd confirms this. The bulk of the bill he crafted was taken directly from those Nazi era laws including the concepts of 'sporting use' and 'prohibited persons'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Dodd

I remember buying guns from the DCM, (now CMP) and getting them in the mail. My high school had a rifle and pistol team. In fact, every public high school in Cleveland built between WW1 and Korea had an indoor range as part of the design. I used to take a target rifle, uncased, on the bus, to matches. The only thing ever said to me was by some WW2 vet who had used a Mossberg 44US like mine in training someplace. Back then virtually every man you knew or met had military service. Most of them before they could vote!

I also remember a minor stir when Senator Dodd had a Colt .25 automatic fall out of his pocket in the Senate chamber.

But in the final analysis, the gun-toting chairman of a committee in a Democratic Congress gets a Nazi authored law passed with a majority of Democrats voting for it.....and EVERY gun control bill passed since then has had the fingerprints of Democratic party all over it. Who remembers that Nixon signed it?

[krispos42]

100. I try to lean away from "if the Nazis did it it must be bad" mentality

as a general rule; otherwise we wouldn't have things like controlled-access superhighways.

And it's a pretty universal priciple that there are only so many ways to accomplish a given task, so that any mechanism that performs that task it likely to look similar to other mechanisms, even if the other mechanisms are from a different era and culture.

Gun control, regardless of the reason, is going to look similar. The underlying reasons will be different, of course, and will change with time.

[one-eyed fat man]

109. the reason is always the same.

Control of those the self-described elites deem unworthy. Most KNOW gun control does not and will not prevent crime or criminals; a very few have even been candid enough to admit that much.

They are abetted by what could most charitably be described as useful idiots. That includes the hopelessly naive who uncritically accept the flawed logic as well as those who simply hate guns because they hate them.

The trouble with this alliance is that the leadership of the antigun movement has openly discussed the using fear and deceit as a strategy to incrementally acheive their objectives.

In their own words:

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
-Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum. The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-Janet Reno

"Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons –anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun– can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarmann

So the liars already know they are lying; those who simply hate guns will always hate them, and they are both counting on the power of stupid people in large numbers.

[krispos42]

111. Yeah, that about covers it

Civilized people don't do violence, you see, so we can't ever condone violence or the instruments thereof... or something like that.

:shrug:

There seems to be this "abstinance-only" attitude towards violence, where no distinction is made between necessary and justified defensive violence and aggressive, criminal violence. Predicably, this works about as well as "abstinance-only" sex education. The kids know they're being fed a bunch of BS that has no bearing on reality and thus have to figure things out for themselves.

[benEzra]

113. I'm skeptical of the Sarah Brady quotation, since she is a conservative Repub

and doesn't want a "socialist" America, but a right-leaning authoritarian one.

The Sugarmann quote is spot-on, though. I have that entire diatribe (Assault Weapons and Accessories in America), and it is not taken out of context, either. Of course, in the end it proved to be a monumental mistake by the gun-ban lobby, because the deception can only last until things actually get banned, and then all those tens of millions of people who thought they wouldn't be affected get a rude awakening, and get pissed a la November 1994 et seq.

[one-eyed fat man]

116. you are correct

I did some double checking and discovered the Brady quote is bogus.

The source, 'The National Educator' is described by the Anti-Defamation League as an anti-Semitic periodical "whose pages have honored the leaders of the far-right terrorist gang called 'The Order' and the neo-Nazi paramilitary group, 'Aryan Nations'."

In other words, the 'National Educator' is something other than a professional magazine for school teachers.

[one-eyed fat man]

81. 50 years wasn't NEAR far enough back..................

The Seventy-third United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, DC from March 4, 1933 to January 3, 1935, during the first two years of the first administration of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

President of the Senate: John Nance Garner
President pro tempore of the Senate: Key Pittman
Speaker of the House: Henry T. Rainey
Members: 435 Representatives; 96 Senators; 5 Territorial Representatives
House Majority: Democratic
Senate Majority: Democratic

The original proposal included regulation of handguns and the establishment of a National Registry of all gun owners. The "watered down" version that did pass and was signed with great fanfare by FDR became known as the National Firearms Act of 1934. Another first to which the Party can lay claim. The law was passed as a TAX measure in an attempt to avoid Second Amendment questions.

(Reading the floor debate in the Congressional Record may be harmful to your blood pressure)

[tburnsten]

87. Why do they do this?

"We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but
15 we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. "


Why? Why do they always use the most heavily restricted, unreasonable cities (it's never a state, always a city) when they want to demonstrate two "reasonable" approaches to guns?

Seems like they are dead-set on losing more elections. I'm tired of the passive aggressiveness, I wish they would just settle on an intelligent approach to firearms policy and stop relying on falsified data from sources like the brady campaign and million mom march.

[spin]

112. Compare the crime statistics of Chicago and Cheyenne...

Maybe Chicago should try what works in Cheyenne.

Chicago:
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Chicago&state=IL

Cheyenne:
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Cheyenne&state=WY

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. Thanks for posting this.

[EstimatedProphet]

90. What specifically IS the "gun show loophole"?

I've bought guns at gun shows, and the procedure was exactly the same as at a store. I had to go through FFL and wait for the background check call, just like at any other place.

[one-eyed fat man]

92. gun show loophole

When you finally pin an anti down to get them to explain they basically don't know WTF they are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo&feature=related (classic video of stuck on stupid)

What they are referring to are sales made by non dealers. To them the guy walking around the show with an K31 slung over his shoulder should be hanged. If you ask him, "What you want for the Swiss rifle?" then, you should be publicly flogged.

The notion that attendees at a show might trade amongst each other and not just the FFL's at the tables has them apoplectic. The term, "gun show loophole" is pejorative whose purpose is to disguise the real intent which is to criminalize all face to face private sales of firearms by anyone anywhere.

[pipoman]

94. See post #28 in this thread. N/T

[krispos42]

119. It's private intrastate sales

Much like I can privately sell you my TV, computer, car, couch, or Playstation, I can also privately sell you my gun (assuming you and I live in the same state).

Background checks are only required when purchasing from a federally licenced dealer.

At a gun show, anybody can rent table space. Most of the people there will be federally licenced dealers selling stuff, but not all of them will be. So you will have some vendors privately selling guns. Often times it is an older person selling off a collection (perhaps he's moving to a nursing home, say) or someone that's inhereted a collection that he or she does not want, so they rent a table and sell off a handful of guns privately in a one-time event.

It's not a "loophole", that's just part of the framing argument and language control. The implication is that gun shows are somehow exempt from federal and state laws, that gun shows occur in the magicical lawless Land of Someplace Else.

The reality is that what determines the necessity of background checks is the seller, not the geographic location.

The retiree or heir can also sell those guns at a garage sale or through a newspaper ad, and the transaction can take place in a parking lot, at a kitchen table, or wherever.

If it's an interstate sale, it must go through a federally-licenced dealer to begin with, so all of those by default go through a background check.

[radioburning]

120. Obama=Gun Grabber=Mcain Wins. The end. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

122. What doesn't work in Chicago may also not work in Cheyenne

With the Platform taking a line verbatim from one of Obama's stump speeches and declaring "What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," it's worth noting that:

"This election season, for instance, the residents of Obama's hometown are being murdered at a clip not seen in five years.

Murders have risen 18 percent over a year ago. Assaults in the city involving guns are also rising. City officials, Police Supt. Jody Weis and the police force are increasingly coming under criticism."


Homicide rate: Chicago 16.4, Cheyenne 3.5
Robbery rate: Chicago 555, Cheyenne 40

More here from the Chicago Tribune

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/is_obama_vulnerable_on_chicago.html

[appal_jack]

124. App's response

This thread is so long that I seriously doubt that anyone will ever read my response, but I'm going to make one for the record anyway.

I wish to state (as a proud and registered Democrat) my complete support for lines 12-14, excepting the last word of line 14 ("but"); I also agree with lines 19 & 20.

However, I wish to state (again, as a proud and registered Democrat) my complete opposition to everything in-between. What nonsense! These words will make it MUCH harder for me to convince my neighbors to vote Democratic this year.

A platform I could live with would state:

"Firearms
12 We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,
13 and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use
14 firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation,
15 and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional
16 right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

Short, sweet, & to the point, yes?

-app

edit for typo.

[benEzra]

125. The gun prohibition lobby looks like it is trying to take some credit for the platform language...

although it appears it was pared down by the platform committee from the draft statement the lobbyists proposed below, the most offensive elements are still there (primarily the "assault weapon" fraud).

http://necpgv.blogspot.com/2008/08/open-democratic-platform-meeting.html

Credited are the New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, Ceasefire New Jersey, Gun Free Kids, as well as the (WAY-out-there) Freedom States Alliance, a group that I originally thought was an Onion-esque spoof of the gun-ban lobby, before I realized they were serious).

The platform committee needs to realize that what the prohibitionists broadly call "assault weapons" are not "fringe" guns; they are some of the most popular civilian firearms in America, and more Americans own them than hunt.

Gullibility is not a progressive value...

[Big_Mike]

126. I don't see the platform being changed by one iota

with Joe Biden as the V/P. nominee. If anything, he is more anti-gun than even Feinstein. This CANNOT help in November.

I also think it points out the indifference of the campaign regarding 2nd Amendment issues.

If anything, I think the plank will be made more strongly pro-gun control than it is in the current form.