Will Howard Dean make the Democratic Party a pro-gun party?

[bluestateguy]

As Vermont Governor Dean was endorsed I believe 4 times by the NRA, and usually earned A ratings on their annual report card. Democrats have lost millions of votes in states like West Virginia, Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania because of guns. I don't mind losing votes to people who are anti-gay, but I don't think the cause of gun control is worth losing elections over. I hope Dean will push the party in the direction of support for gun ownership and tell the gun grabbers to get a life.

[BlueInRed]

1. I think he'll try to encourage it be decided locally

At least that's what I heard him say before.

[montana500]

2. yes. And it should be that way.

we have to make the gun issue a local one.

[MADem]

3. I think Dean will push the party to a LOCAL CONTROL

perspective. I live in a NO DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS town. You can't hunt here. However, you can take your gun and go up the road and hunt in season.

It doesn't make sense for ranchers not to have guns, it doesn't make sense for city dwellers to have vast arsenals. Local rules, local control. It's a very GOP concept, actually, but they are quickly shifting to the FATHER KNOWS BEST mentality.

It's only a matter of time before the GOP decides they need to take the guns away, because they will want to exert control over all of the citizenry, and they can't do that if Democrats, especially, have guns. They'll blame it on the Dems, of course, but we have no power.

At least not right now.

[sierrajim]

30. Why not?

it doesn't make sense for city dwellers to have vast arsenals.

If your not a theif I ask why not?.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

4. He earned those NRA ratings because...

he supports states' rights. I hardly think he's willing to cede gun control completely. (Perhaps those "gun grabbers" are trying to preserve a life?)

[T Town Jake]

8. Here's a trick I learned right here in the Gungeon...let's play -

... - precisely WHAT are you talking about! Contestant TWriterD, step right up:

"Perhaps those "gun grabbers" are trying to preserve a life?"

Perhaps. And perhaps they're trying to catch a cold. Maybe the Rain in Spain is always the same - or different somehow. Who knows? But considering that the municipalities in these here United States with the most stringent gun control laws also tend to have the highest rates of murder-by-firearm, I'd conjecture that something is amiss in your analysis of the facts as they are...

Please try again.

[benEzra]

15. Actually, Dean was NRA endorsed as governor of Vermont...

because he was very pro-gun as governor. Case in point: Vermont was, and is, one of the very few states to allow the law-abiding to carry a gun one one's person for defensive purposes without a permit or license.

[delhurgo]

5. I think making this a 'local issue' may diffuse it to

some extent, but it still shows that Democrats don't get it. Its sort of a half-assed way of dealing with the issue, and I don't think will gain trust from the majority of people that consider this an important civil liberty. Would you trust someone who said that the first amendment is a 'local issue'? I wouldn't.

"I hope Dean will push the party in the direction of support for gun ownership and tell the gun grabbers to get a life."

Yes, imo this is what has to happen. You can't just sort of sweep it under the rug, you have to be pro-active, be for gun rights - the same way most people in this party are for abortion rights.

[MrSandman]

23. As long as SCOTUS does not apply the 14th Amendment...

"All politics are local."

[jody]

25. I agree. The 14th would mean that citizens of every state have the same

rights as citizens of Pennsylvania as follows.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

Alabama’s constitution says “That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state” and protects that right by saying “That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.”

I want to ask the gun-grabbers, “What part of NO don’t you understand?”

[delhurgo]

35. I think of the state constitutions as the first line of defense

for civil liberties, and that the nation's Bill of Rights should be used as sort of a last resort - if needed. I think the 'right to keep and bear arms' for individuals is there in the 2nd AMEND, if interpreted 'liberally'. This argument about a 'militia' is a conservative interpretation imo. Ill bet most liberals don't think of it that way, but thats the way I do.

[delhurgo]

34. Yeah, I know about the 14th Amend and think

that all the amendments in the Bill of Rights should be enforced in all the states. At least I'm consistent, while conservatives seem to pick and choose which ones they want enforced and which ones they don't. I think most of em don't know better; they're the ones that need to learn about the 14th Amend. If they knew that 'states rights' means that individual states could then restrict gun-rights Ill bet they'd be for an 'activist court' real quick.

[AndyTiedye]

6. We Didn't Lose Those Votes over Gun Control. They Never Were Ours.

The NRA will still act like a subsidiary of the Republican party
and those who listen to them will still all vote Republican,
just like they always have. That won't change just because of
Howard Dean.

I don't like guns, but I'm not to keen on gun control either.
Especially nowadays. If we tried to restrict firearms significantly,
it would mean that only the wingnuts would have them.

There isn't any enthusiasm for gun control on any side of the house
these days, so we should certainly focus on other issues, like:

Close the war! End the Crusade!

Export American Goods, Not American Jobs!

Don't Let Them Steal Your Social Security!

that sort of thing.

[benEzra]

10. This will probably surprise you...

The NRA will still act like a subsidiary of the Republican party and those who listen to them will still all vote Republican, just like they always have.

Here's the list of NRA endorsements for state offices here in NC. It may surprise you:

Governor--Mike Easley, Democrat (endorsed over "A" rated Repub)
Lt. Governor--Beverly Perdue, Democrat
Attorney General--Roy Cooper, Democrat (endorsed over a pro-gun repub)

State Senate
District 1--Marc Basnight, Democrat
District 2--Scott Thomas, Democrat(endorsed over "A" rated repub)
District 3--Clark Jenkins, Democrat
District 4--Robert Holloman, Democrat(unopposed)
District 5--no endorsement
District 6--Cecil Hargett, Jr., Democrat(over "A" rated repub)
District 7--no endorsement
District 8--R.C. Soles, Jr., Democrat
etc.

In fact, looking over the first page of the endorsements, it looks like wherever there was an "A" rated Democrat, the Democrat was endorsed regardless of her/his opponent's rating. So they appear to be going out of their way to be friendly to Democrats, if the Dem isn't a diehard prohibitionist.

The problem the party has been having is that most of the candidates chosen to represent the Democrats at the national level recently have been diehard prohibitionists, which automatically throws the NRA endorsement to the other side.

FWIW, I think Dean could get the NRA endorsement if he doesn't jump back on the "Ban Scary Looking Guns" bandwagon like he did in the campaign. That really hurt him among gun owners.

You may also find this thread interesting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=97165&mesg_id=97165

[T Town Jake]

7. Your entire post, besides being absolutely right, also has...

...the potential to provide hours/days/perhaps even weeks of entertainment down here in the Gungeon, thanks to this single sentence:

"I don't mind losing votes to people who are anti-gay, but I don't think the cause of gun control is worth losing elections over"

The small Round 'em up! - smelt 'em into slag! coterie hereabouts will be quick on the draw, so to speak, with their million-and-one reasons why it is essential that we continue losing elections if it means abandoning the minuscule political barricades the gun control crowd has erected - barricades the GOP has been rolling over for years at the electoral expense of good Democrats.

Expect flames...lots of horseshit flames.

[Columbia]

9. I hope so

I just hope he doesn't get talked out of it by the gun grabbers like they did to Al Gore.

[jody]

11. The Democratic Party Platform is already pro-gun suggesting the majority

of Democrats are pro-gun. It's time for the gun-grabbers to join other Democrats, particularly us Yellow Dog Dems, and focus on recapturing our government. To do otherwise is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Democratic Party Platform 2004
QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE

[benEzra]

12. Except for the crapola about "assault weapons"...

meaning 11-round handguns and rifles with the stock shaped a certain way.

Four out of five gun owners are nonhunters, so limiting gun ownership to hunting guns only isn't pro-gun at all, and it's THAT issue that has been hurting the party so badly on the gun issue since 1994.

The supporters of the original ban on 11-round/Scary Looking guns took great pains to explain that they weren't trying to ban hunting guns, as did Gore in 2000 and Senator Kerry in 2004. But that's not particularly reassuring to nonhunters, especially when party leaders keep saying stuff like "if you want to own <the guns in your own gun safe>, you need to join the military," and parroting prohibitionist talking points that are so inaccurate as to be laughable.

[Billy Ruffian]

13. and the crapola about the gun show loophole

If you're a dealer, you have to comply with all the Federal, state and local laws concerning sales.

If you're a private citizen, you still have to comply with the laws, but the law is different (I don't need to run a NICS check on the buyer, I don't have to make them fill out a 4473. For handguns, here in NC, I need to collect their pistol purchase permit, or see their CCW license)

If the Democratic party wants to make private citizens do the same things that dealers do, fine.. just call it what it is, not a gun-show loophole. That terminology is propaganda, making it sound like gun shows are places where there are piles and piles of weapons available for sale to anyone at all. 'Gun show loophole' is dishonest hyperbole.

[skippythwndrdog]

51. That is not really pro-gun.

The AWB is anti-gun, and there is no gun show loophole. Those are decidedly anti-gun statements in the platform. Hopefully Dr. Dean will help on the pro-gun side.

[Township75]

14. I supported Dean in the primaries, and I now hope he leads the Dems away

from the failed and wrong path of gun control.

As much as I don't necessarily support the "let the states decide" approach to the issue, it will be a step in the right direction.

I am really happy for Dean; he is getting the position he deserves...well, I guess that would be president, but this new position (or very likely new position) isn't a bad one either. He can really help our party there.

[alwynsw]

16. I can live with a states rights approach to gun control.

That seems to have been, and seems to be, Dean's stance on the issue. I would prefer the restoration of gun rights to the same status as 1933 throughout the country, but that likely won't happen.

[Lefty48197]

17. The Republicans and their NRA friends will slander Dean like they do every

Democrat. Don't fool yourselves. There will be a lying attack-ad assault on the Democratic candidate, no matter who we nominate, and NRA money will be used in that slander attack.

In answer to you question: I think the Democratic party IS a pro-gun party. Supporting reasonable controls on firearms does NOT make anybody "anti-gun", in spite of the millions of dollars the NRA spends telling us otherwise.

[MrSandman]

18. And reasonable means what????nt

On edit: Welcome back to GC/GR.:hi:

[jody]

19. Sorry but the NRA gave Siegelman, Democratic candidate for governor,

an A+ against Republican candidate Riley in Alabama.

All the Democrats have to do is follow our platform that says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime" and get rid of the vestiges of gun-grabber unreality that says "reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole".

Gun-grabbers make as much sense as someone trying to milk a bull!

[MrSandman]

20. And fawned all over * at the convention...nt

[jody]

21. Who fawned over who? n/t

[MrSandman]

22. NRA fawned over *Bush...

You remember how out in front they were supporting his reelection.

[jody]

24. OK, but Lefty 48197 said the NRA slandered every Democrat and

that's not true. I refuted that assertion by giving Siegelman as an example but there are many more.

The NRA is a single issue organization and uses RKBA effectively to persuade voters to vote against Democratic candidates that do not support RKBA as they do Republicans candidates that do not support RKBA. The Brady Bunch and other gun-grabber groups do the same thing.

I haven't checked, but I would expect to find the Brady Bunch endorsing Republicans that support banning some or all firearms just as the NRA supports Democrats that support RKBA.
:shrug:

[MrSandman]

26. All around WVa also...nt

[jody]

27. Are you saying the NRA does not support Democrats that are pro RKBA

against Republicans who are gun-grabbers? That's not true.

[MrSandman]

28. Most of the NRA endorsements in WV are Democrats...

[jody]

29. I understand.

:hi:

[Lefty48197]

37. Another misleading statement....

"just as the NRA supports Democrats that support RKBA."
Again claiming that support for any regulation of firearms is "anti-RKBA" is just another part of the NRA inflammatory campaign to mislead voters into voting for Republicans, and thereby cutting their families economic throats in the name of "freedom".

[jody]

39. You said "NRA friends will slander Dean like they do every Democrat."

What the NRA does re Dean does not translate to all Democratic candidates. If NRA statements or those by the Brady Bunch are slander or libel, then I expect a lawsuit will be filed against the offending party.

I did not claim that "support for any regulation of firearms is 'anti-RKBA'". What are you trying to say?

The Brady Bunch has criticized Democratic candidates for their pro-RKBA position just as the NRA has criticized Democratic candidates for their anti-RKBA position. Using your logic, one must conclude that the Brady Bunch will slander every Democrat.

Perhaps you could just save time by admitting that your statement that the NRA slanders every Democrat is wrong.


:shrug:

[turnkey]

40. You're not much into facts...are ya.

You would rather spew misinformation to support you're misguided contention.

[Lefty48197]

42. "not into facts" "misinformation" "misguided"

Pretty strong words for somebody that didn't present a single piece of evidence to support his contention.

[turnkey]

43. The NRA supports pro-gun Democrats...PERIOD...

do your homework, then prove me wrong!

[MrSandman]

46. I thought I read on an older thread that...

The NRA opposed the AWB, but support the GCA, NFA, FOPA, & NICS.

All the above regulate the ownership of firearms.

[benEzra]

47. Banning a civilian rifle because of the way its stock is shaped...

is anti-RKBA. Restricting the scope of the Second Amendment to only cover hunting firearms is anti-RKBA.

And from a pragmatic standpoint, limiting the 2ndA and pushing for draconian restrictions on nonhunting-style guns is politically idiotic when ~80 MILLION voters own guns and 80% percent of those are not hunters...

Eighty percent--EIGHTY PERCENT--of union members in Tennessee are gun owners. Do you wonder why 50% of union members in Tennessee went for *? Or why pro-gun Democrats won easily at all levels here in NC (from governor on down), but the presidential ticket and Senate candidate Bowles were shot down in flames by the SAME voters who elected Dems to all the other state offices??

[Peak_Oil]

61. That's the point.

Add up the numbers. We lost the Trifecta over this bullshit. The Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives over 11-round handguns vs 10-round handguns, and pistolgrip stocks vs sporter stocks.

That issue cost us the Trifecta. Complete idiocy and stupidity.

Support RKBA, elect Democratic winners.

Simple as that.

5% of 80 million gun owners is 4 million votes. That would have won us the Trifecta and we'd be able to END THE WAR AND BRING TROOPS BACK HOME.

The stakes are too high. Stop the insanity

[Lefty48197]

41. Here's what I actually said:

"There will be a lying attack-ad assault on the Democratic candidate, no matter who we nominate, and NRA money will be used in that slander attack." ...that's a little different than:
"but Lefty 48197 said the NRA slandered every Democrat"

also you continually use the inflammatory rhetoric such as:
"Democratic candidates that do not support RKBA " - You use statements such as this to describe any Democrat who doesn't support 100.0% unregulated gun ownership. The twisted implication is that any support for the gun regulation mandated by the Constitution is somehow foolish, and earns the candidate the slanderous attacks from the NRA.

[Billy Ruffian]

44. You're weaseling

If a Dem candidate for Pres was pro-RKBA, he might get the NRA endorsement.

All over the US, at state and local levels, the NRA has endorsed Democrats. Here in NC, the NRA endorsed the Dem governor and Lt. Governor, and many state legislators.

You're wrong.

[jody]

45. Lefty48197 said in post #17 “The Republicans and their NRA friends will

slander Dean like they do every Democrat.”

You said the NRA will slander every Democrat not some or a few. I pointed out an exception to your "every Democrat" and that is sufficient to refute your assertion.

The audit trail in this thread speaks for itself.

[iverglas]

73. what Lefty48197 actually said, for anyone actually interested

The Republicans and their NRA friends will slander Dean like they do every Democrat. Don't fool yourselves. There will be a lying attack-ad assault on the Democratic candidate, no matter who we nominate, and NRA money will be used in that slander attack.

The fact that the NRA very occasionally endorses a very rare Democratic candidate for some electoral office somewhere IS NOT a refutation of the assertion that the Republicans and their NRA friends will slander Dean like they do every Democrat.

The NRA slanders THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY, incessantly and disgustingly.

And to my mind, that is slandering EVERY DEMOCRAT. I mean, if I were a Democrat, I'd sure feel slandered if someone said the things about my party and my presidential candidate that the NRA says about Democrats'.

Good grief, if I were to say that all firearms owners are stupid and violent, and make deceitful statements about the big head firearm owner of the world, and then endorse a firearm owner as the candidate for my sister's hand in marriage over a non-firearm owner, would anyone really say that I had not slandered all firearms owners -- including the one who wanted to marry my sister?

http://www.nraila.com

John Kerry Wants to Ban Guns in America
Kerry Rated . . . Fake, Fraud and Second Amendment Phony

Damn, how could anyone call saying things like that about the Democratic candidate for President slandering every Democrat?

[MADem]

33. Obviously the boyking has no loyalty to his "deddy"

The NRA crapped all over his old man, they refused to endorse him. Some say it cost him the election.

I think 41 cancelled his lifetime membership over that.

[Lefty48197]

36. Are you suggesting that the Democratic position is

contrary to this: "and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists"? I just don't see the Democrats as working to put guns into the hands of criminals and terrorists right now.

[benEzra]

48. Nobody is arguing about

keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

The primary delta between the party platform and the NRA's position is the platform's call for banning guns holding over 10 rounds and guns with the stock shaped a certain way (a.k.a. the "assault weapons ban").

That is the wedge issue on the 2ndA front, and pretending it's not is abject denial. I personally >>DON'T CARE<< if I'm "allowed" to own a skeet shotgun; my wife and I want to keep our modern-looking small-caliber self-loaders and our defensive-style handguns, thanks.

If the national party would decide to stay the heck out of our gun safes, the NRA wouldn't CARE who won. They are a single-issue organization.

[benEzra]

38. Reasonable controls are

background checks, prohibitions against possession by criminals and the mentally incompetent, restrictions on automatic weapons, destructive devices, and so on. Which are for the most part already on the books.

What some party leaders consider "reasonable"--banning anything holding over 10 rounds, or banning rifles based on the way the stock is shaped (!)--are NOT reasonable, they're extremist, IMHO. So is restricting certain guns because "you can't use them for hunting," since 80% of us gun owners don't hunt.

[slackmaster]

31. The chairman of the DNC doesn't determine the nature of the party

He just takes the hit when it fails to develop good objectives and/or fails to achieve them.

[MrSandman]

32. Didn't Dean say he would ...

Focus on elections and leave policy to the politicians/candidates?

[delhurgo]

49. I think dropping gun-control would help solve three problems

this party has:

First of all, of course, it would nullify the gun issue which single handedly loses elections for democrats - especially in the south.

Also, I think it would make the party appear more credible on Defense. In dealing with our enemies, and especially terrorists, I don't think voters trust a party that's sort of squeamish about firearms.

Thirdly, I think it helps to dispel the belief that the party is soft on crime. Its sort of symbolic, like Defense, - I think it sort of sends the message that "were on your side and not the criminal's". Of course that has to go together with being for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

I think it would help to change the whole identity of the party from being sort of wimpy to one of strength. It would sort of give the party an injection of testosterone that it badly needs. This party is too female, and too gay, imo

[Redneck Socialist]

50. "This party is too female, and too gay, imo."!?

Let me politely respond by saying, :wtf:

I can think of many ways to interpret your last sentence, none of them good. I figure I should give you a chance to explain it in more detail though on the off chance that I am indeed misinterpreting what you wrote.

[delhurgo]

53. I don't know if you're misinterpreting or not.

I think the democratic party is perceived by many to be sort of pacifist, 'The Mommy party', bleeding heart, etc... and that that causes you to be less electable especially at the presidential level, and especially during a time when the country is under threat. You don't have to give up pro-choice, or gay rights, etc... I just think being for gun-rights would help give the party some balance and a sort of tougher persona (for lack of a better word), and not so pacifist - not all gays and women are like that, I know.

Btw, I think the republican party is too white and too religious - thats their weakness.

[delhurgo]

55. Just to clarify,

I should have just said 'too left' instead of singling out gays and women. Its what you believe thats important not your gender or orientation. But the democrat activist groups that represent, or claim to, gays and women tend to be pacifistic and anti-gun - and they have alot of influence on and help to define the democratic party. But I think gays popped into my head because of another thread I was reading about 'gay marriage', and females did because they tend to much more likely be for gun-control - gays do too though for the most part.

The same would go for republicans too then, its what they believe as well and doesn't have anything to do with race or religion - unless its the theocratic variety.

[Redneck Socialist]

71. Presentation is everything

I was reading through your post pretty much agreeing with you (Gun control is a loser issue for the Dems) until I hit that last sentence and I went "whoa, hang on a sec here."

I disagree that the Democratic party is "too left" however you want to phrase it. The pubs have done an all too good job portraying us as such, but the pub's vision has nothing to do with reality.

If the Democratic party can shake that perception (and dumping gun control would be a good start) we will start winning more elections.

[MrSandman]

52. No it ain't...

This party is too female, and too gay, imo

The Democrats who are anti-RKBA, not pro gun-control, are powerful members of the Senate and cause the party to be painted with a broad brush. The Democrats from WV in the House voted against the AWB, for repeal of AWB, and refused to sign the motion or whatever to have the AWB voted on over the objection of the Republican leadership.

[delhurgo]

54. Good for them, but Im talking about the party overall,

not just some politicians from WV. Its more than just some powerful senators, its the 'base' that votes in primaries, and the leadership, and the majority of the party is for gun-control. If you have a survey that says otherwise I'd like to see it. Democrats, in general, have to change their opinion of the 2nd Amend to sort of the way they interpret the 1st - that is being a liberal, a real 'liberal', imo.

[MrSandman]

56. I still believe it is more of a regional issue...

How many anti-RKBA Democtrats come from NC, GA, SC, FL, TX, et al. campared to CA, NY, MA, NJ?

Even the CA repoooblicans are anti-RKBA,e.g. Reagan, Arnold.(Remember their bans?)


NY...ibid, e.g. NYC mayor.

[Jackie97]

57. I'm pro-gun control.

I think that anybody who would determine how they vote based on how easily they can obtain a gun is stupid. They're the ones that need to get a life. Them, and those people who voted for Bush because they won't want gays getting married. Seriously, there are far more important issues in this country than stopping gays or being able to more easily buy a gun.

People for gun control are not saying to outlaw guns. They're saying to have some standards. I sometmies think that if the so called "pro-gun" people had their way, you would be able to buy a gun as easily as you could buy gum.

Oh, they claim that they're for some standards, but they fight every standard presented.

[benEzra]

58. No, we don't...

We DON'T oppose background checks for purchase, prohibition against purchase by criminals, strict controls on automatic weapons, suppressed firearms, over-.50-caliber firearms, armor-piercing handgun ammunition, etc. etc.

What we are currently fighting is the push to ban guns holding over 10 rounds (which have been on the civilian market since the 1860's) or rifles and shotguns with the stock shaped a certain way.

If banning nonhunting-style guns is indeed so unimportant, why continue to treat it as the most important issue in the whole party platform? My wife and I both own firearms that the prohibitionists want to see banned, and we want to keep them. Is that so bad?

If you're interested, here's my perspective on gun control and the national party:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x97165

[Jackie97]

59. Wow, that's a little bit long.

I'll read it shortly, but not right now.

I think what you're not understanding is that there is a difference between pro-gun control and prohibitionist. The NRA wants to stop just about every type of standard there is. Tell me something, what's wrong with having a week to further check somebody's background? I read about a so called pro-gun group lately objecting to national IDs because it would make it harder for them to sell a gun. Hello? Do they have a problem with making sure we don't sell guns to terrorists?

You all portraying the pro-gun control people as all a bunch of prohibitionists will not cut it for me. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm fed up with people making us out to be prohibitionists when there's a difference.

I know plenty of pro-gun people who think the NRA has lost their mind. There's a reason. It's because the NRA is objecting to just about everything suggested to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I think they would object to those screenings that you speak of if they thought they could get away with it. I can't prove that, but that's what I think.

[benEzra]

63. You appear to be confusing a straw-man position with the NRA's...

"The NRA wants to stop just about every type of standard there is."

"I know plenty of pro-gun people who think the NRA has lost their mind. There's a reason. It's because the NRA is objecting to just about everything suggested to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I think they would object to those screenings that you speak of if they thought they could get away with it. I can't prove that, but that's what I think."

No, they don't. The position I outlined in my previous post--background checks required for purchase, illegal for criminals to so much as touch a gun, restrictions on automatic weapons/over-.50-caliber/disguised firearms/destructive devices, etc. IS the NRA's position. The NRA (and the rest of us gunnies) also support vigorous efforts to enforce the current laws against criminal use and possession of guns.

As I said, the point of disagreement between the NRA and the Democratic party platform is the issue of banning all guns that hold over 10 rounds or long guns with the stock shaped a certain way--guns the prohibitionists have tagged with the label "assault weapons."

Where did you get your information on what the NRA supports and does not support? I suspect you got it from the anti-gun lobby via media reports, not from the NRA itself...

[Jackie97]

65. Actually....

I got my information about how the NRA is from its very defenders. If you all want to be viewed as reasonable people, then you've got stop opposing every act of gun control there is. There was nothing in the world wrong with a one week waiting period. There's nothing wrong with national IDs to keep terrorists from buying guns. For some reason, the NRA and groups like it act like there's a problem every single time that I've seen whenever somebody wants to make it harder for a criminal to buy a gun.

[Jackie97]

60. Okay, I've read some of it.

Here's the problem with what you're talking about. It's not just criminals that are a problem in the gun owning society. It's also idiots. So many children are killed every year because their idiotic parents couldn't keep those guns out of their kid's hands and couldn't effectively teach them to stay away from the guns. I read once that most people shot in their own house are shot with their own gun. I'm guessing that some of these people are having their own guns used on them when a criminal breaks in.

There's also an issue that whenever a criminal is found with a gun, the gun can normally be traced back to somebody who bought it legally. Obviously, the owner was too irresponsible to keep themselves from selling a gun to a criminal or to somebody who would eventually sell it to a criminal. If a gun is registered in your name, then it's your responsiblity to make sure that gun never gets into the hands of a criminal.

If you want all these strong gun rights, then you need to start coming up with solutions to problems.

I liked that sterotypes part of your message. Here's another dumb stereotype. The gun owner is a right winger. Since the country's so divided with everybody fearing the other side, I want to make a bet that there was an increase in leftists buying a gun after Bush won again. lol. I am not threatening anybody, but I'm thinking that it would be very foolish for the American left to be without a gun right now. That's putting all the guns in the hands of right wingers (a few of which are crazy as hell). Most people would not hurt you for political reasons, but it only takes one. As long as guns are this easy to access, I think leftists in America need to have one. Now, I'm getting off the subject.

[benEzra]

64. Reply part 2 (next break...)

"Here's the problem with what you're talking about. It's not just criminals that are a problem in the gun owning society. It's also idiots. So many children are killed every year because their idiotic parents couldn't keep those guns out of their kid's hands and couldn't effectively teach them to stay away from the guns."

Here in NC, a law was passed with the support of both pro-gun and anti-gun groups that says that if you leave a gun within reach or easy access of a minor, and the minor gets hold of it and either hurts himself or others or commits a crime with it, the gun owner is guilty of a felony and loses the right to own guns for life. That's a law everybody can live with. Satisfies the pro-gun side because it doesn't outlaw keeping a loaded gun for self-defense, and satisfies the anti-gun side because it promotes responsible storage. Florida (and probably most other states) have similar laws.

Statistically, guns rank near-last among causes of accidental death (I think for younger children the risk of owning a swimming pool are 10x to 100x the risk of owning a gun, on a per-owning-household basis), but the issue can be addressed in a way that satisifies all sides, as long as the anti's aren't trying to outlaw self-defense.

"I read once that most people shot in their own house are shot with their own gun. I'm guessing that some of these people are having their own guns used on them when a criminal breaks in."

Probably a garbled version of the Arthur Kellerman et al. study, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1986, that claimed a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. (Kellerman and others later reduced this to 2 times more likely, IIRC.) They arrived at this figure by <1> ignoring the vast majority of defensive uses and <2> deceptively inflating the "killing a friend or family member" figures.

For example, Kellerman et al. excluded any defensive uses that did not result in the DEATH of the criminal. In other words, if a rapist breaks in, his intended victim retrieves a gun, and the rapist flees, it doesn't count. If she fires a warning shot and he flees, it doesn't count. If she shoots and hits him, but he survives, it doesn't count. If she shoots and kills him, and she knew who he was (i.e., stalker), it is counted as "shooting a friend or family member." This obviously stacks the statistics against defensive uses, particularly since Kleck et al have shown that in well over 90% (I think possibly 98%) of defensive gun uses, the criminal fled as soon as the intended victim produced a gun, and no shots were fired. (My father's "save" in the early 1970's was in this category.)

Kellerman also failed to state clearly that in nearly all of the cases in which the gun owner was murdered with a gun, it was the criminal's gun; in other words, if the homeowner's gun was unloaded and locked up and a murderer broke in and killed the unarmed gun owner, it would have been counted in the "gun death involving friend or family member" category. It also included suicides by the gun owner, greatly inflating the "gun owner killed" category. Finally, IIRC the original Kellerman study was conducted in an area where ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens is something of a hassle, reducing the number of guns in households at low risk for murder (the control group).

Other studies such as the National Crime Victimization Survey have shown that intended crime victims who fight back with a gun are LESS likely to be injured than victims who use any other method of defense (including nonresistant compliance), and ALL of the injuries to gun-using intended victims occurred BEFORE the victim accessed the gun.

So the upshot is this: for competent, responsible individuals who take the time to become familiar with their firearm, the gun provides a net safety benefit. But it should be a carefully considered, individual decision, IMHO.

[Jackie97]

66. Well...

you certainly seem to know your stuff, so I don't want to mess with you too much. lol.

Get it through your head though. Pro-gun control does not equal anti-gun. They're not the same. That's like saying that a Democrat is a Commie because he/she supports social programs. It's not true. It's just not. It is true that a very few Democrats are actually Socialists. It is true that a very few pro-gun control people are anti-gun (and actually, pro-hunting gun only is still not anti-gun. Ask the Menendez brothers for more information. lol).

[benEzra]

67. I see your point...

but I was mostly using "anti-gun" as shorthand for "anti-non-hunting-style-guns," since hunting is more or less accepted by even the most extreme gun-control lobbyists (ergo, the Violence Policy Center).

If only hunting guns were legal, the vast majority of gun-owning voters would indeed find ourselves stripped of our rights, since the vast majority of us aren't hunters. I personally don't care if I'm "allowed" to own a skeet shotgun or a turkey gun. I don't hunt and I don't shoot skeet.

My wife owns a 15-round handgun that she'd like to keep. Can't use it for hunting (and a 9mm isn't powerful enough to hunt much with anyway), but that's irrelevant since she's not a hunter. I own a couple of small-caliber self-loading rifles with modern-looking ergonomic stocks that I'd like to keep. Only one of them is powerful enough for hunting (and just barely at that), but I don't hunt. I'd still like to keep them...

[jody]

62. If you're pro-gun control, what new federal laws would you add to

those that already exist? See current laws at TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 44 —FIREARMS

[MrSandman]

68. Requiring reports of civil commitments and...

Domestic violence convictions be reported to NICS or loss of federal funding.

[jody]

69. I believe "Domestic violence convictions" are part of most law enforcement

databases.

I assume you mean "civil commitments" for mental illness and on the surface that appears logical but is it subject to abuse?

[MrSandman]

70. I hope the midemeanors are reported to NICS...

I doubt the reporting of civil commitments would reduce gun violence by much, but it would add to integrity of system.

How about adding federal preemption?...I forgot that one.

[jody]

72. Please clarify "federal preemption". Of what and why? n/t

[MrSandman]

74. Preemption of state and local laws ...

more restrictive than federal laws so one can go from A to C without unknowingly breaking the law in B.

[jody]

75. I understand, however, if SCOTUS decides that RKBA is a state issue, then

a state like Massachusetts can have laws more restrictive than Vermont. One can't have it both ways and it seems possible that SCOTUS might decide that RKBA is a state issue.

Constitutional Scholar Laurence Tribe and Justices Thomas and Scalia have stated that RKBA is possibly a state issue.

New view on arms rights angers liberals Link is broken

QUOTE
Tribe , a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978, the right to bear arms earns Tribe's respect in the latest version.

Tribe , well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as ''wholly irrelevant.' ' Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that ''the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.' '

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, ''admittedly of uncertain scope,' ' to ''possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes.' '
UNQUOTE

PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES

Justice Thomas, concurring.
QUOTE
The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or "abridging the freedom of speech." The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: " well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. 1 If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. 2 As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries 1890, p. 746 (1833).
UNQUOTE

Antonin Scalia wrote in "A Matter of Interpretation"
QUOTE
But there is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states,.
UNQUOTE

[MrSandman]

76. But neither scholar nor justice...

opine what may happen whe 2nd Amendment meets the 14th.

Even though not Constitutionally required, I do not believe the preemption is Constitutionally proscribed.

[jody]

77. I agree. The 14th should mean that what PA has in its constitution applies

to all other states. I like it because it's crystal clear, predates the Constitution, and was modified just a few months after PA ratified the BOR.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)