Brian Schweitzer, "libertarian dems" and how we should go about winning

[mrgorth]

We need more of this guy. As I've said, if he ran, we'd win.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14856809.htm

[Warpy]

1. Any candidate who doesn't take a page out of Schweitzer's book

is likely to lose to another fraudulent election. He'll deserve to lose, too.

Schweitzer not only campaigned on gun rights, he also campaigned as an unabashed progressive, an economic populist. The package proved unbeatable in one of the reddest states in the west.

He knows what it takes to WIN outside the big cities on the coasts. The party needs to tune out the beltway conservatives and listen to him.

[ruggerson]

2. Schweitzer is the one

More and more I think he is what our party has been searching for.

[pocoloco]

3. LOL

It's amazing how many Dems are against firearm ownership but still end up shooting themselves in the foot!!!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[SheilaT]

4. Why is it that

"Protect the right of Americans to own guns"
and "Control gun ownership" are considered mutually exclusive?

Apparently the "right of Americans to own guns" means "An absolute and unlimited right to possess as many guns as possible or desired without any restrictions whatsoever". Which really isn't what the phrase really means. Of course, all who believe in the absolute and unlimited etc are more than entitled to believe that way, but notice that in every part of the country people come out in favor of restrictions. Oh, and restrictions is NOT the same as "Jackbooted government thugs will come into your home in the middle of the night and take away all of your precious guns and leave you helpless and defenseless in the face of evil intruders to your home and worse yet, leave you unable to defend yourself and your family from the horrors of government jackbooted thugs."

[benEzra]

6. I think you misunderstand the issue somewhat...

in the current context, being "pro-gun" means supporting the right of law-abiding adults, with clean criminal records, who have never been ajudicated mentally incompetent, who can pass a Federal background check, from owning any non-automatic civilian firearm (NFA Title 1) that meets all the legal requirements (size, configuration, caliber) of the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the miscellany of other laws that restrict what civilian gun owners can own.

Being "pro-gun control," in the current context, means advocating sweeping new restrictions on what civilians can currently own, generally whatever the gun-prohibitionist lobby tags with a scary name (such as civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out).

The vast majority of gun owners, AND THE NRA, are OK with the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of '68, the armor-piercing ammo ban of '86, etc. etc. etc.

For more on the topic, please see this DU thread: Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

More Dems need to understand this issue, even if they don't own guns. Gullibility on the gun issue is really hurting the party in states with high rates of gun ownership.

[SheilaT]

7. The way I see is it

is that it's couched the way I expressed it, either in favor of unrestricted ownership or in favor of restrictive barriers to ownership. What you've just expressed is highly sensible, but it's not the kind of rhetoric that comes out of pro gun groups such as the NRA. Remember how those nice folks held a major get-together in Denver less than two weeks after Columbine? So it's nice to know that those kindly NRA people now agree that there should be background checks and all.

Nonetheless, I still find it odd that this issue is presented as having only two aspects to it.

[benEzra]

8. The present reality is moderate restrictions on ownership,

background checks to purchase, and an absolute prohibition on criminal possession/use. No one is trying to change any of that.


Unfortunately, the gun-ban lobby has created the fictions that:


--most gun owners are hunters and only care about hunting guns;

--gun owners' opposition to sweeping NEW gun control is opposition to all gun regulation;

--there are only two choices, either opposing all gun regulation or enacting sweeping new restrictions; there is no middle ground.


The thing is, there IS middle ground, and it is reflected in the consensus and compromise that has been forged between gun owners and would-be gun banners over the last 72 years, that have resulted in the laws we have today. The gun-ban lobby would have you believe that "reasonable gun control" is outlawing civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, or banning all civilian guns holding more than 10 rounds, but that's not moderate; that's extreme.

FWIW, NRA has been quite vocal in its support for enforcement of existing gun laws, and if anything goes too far on the tough-on-criminals thing (they were a major force behind the original Three Strikes laws, which I personally oppose).

Remember how those nice folks held a major get-together in Denver less than two weeks after Columbine?

They DID cancel everything they were legally allowed to cancel:

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0422nra3.shtml

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.

While I appreciated the reasoning behind the gesture, then and now, I was unclear as to exactly why it was the NRA's fault that a mass murder was carried out using illegally sawed off hunting shotguns, purchased, possessed, and used illegally. Even the most extreme anti-gun groups in the U.S. do not advocate bans on the primary murder weapons at Columbine (at least not publicly), so I don't see how this was somehow a reflection on the NRA.

But IMO the NRA, and most of the positions rightly or wrongly ascribed to it, are a red herring. The real issue is America's 65 to 80 million gun owners, which both set the NRA's policy, and give it any clout it has at the polls.

[dsc]

9. That is totally false

The NRA has fought tooth and nail against any backround check at all for gun buyers. They opposed Brady and we lost Congress to prove it. It is just plain false to suggest the NRA supports backround checks. They also fought the armor piercing ban until they figured out they would lose and then said it was OK. The fact is if a third of Congress would have been willing to uphold a veto they would have still opposed that bill.

[benEzra]

12. No, you are incorrect...

the NRA opposed the Brady Bill because it was a mandatory waiting period with an optional background check. The NRA was THE major force behind the enactment of the current Federal NCIS point-of-sale background check law in the mid-'90s, and touts it as one of their big success stories. NO ONE is advocating the repeal of the background check law.

As far as the armor-piercing bullet ban, you are also quite incorrect. The NRA helped write Public Law 99-408 (1986), which bans armor-piercing handgun ammunition. See a summary of the legislative history here, and the text of one of the Congressional committee hearings on the topic here.

FWIW, Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-NY), sponsor of the original proposal that would have accidentally banned most rifle ammunition, said of the NRA's bill (which became Public Law 99-408) that

"…our final legislative product was not some watered-down version of what we set out to do. In the end, there was no compromise on the part of police safety.

He had suggested allaying the NRA's concerns by defining a "handgun" as having a 5-inch barrel, but in the end the NRA's suggestion of a construction-based standard was deemed more workable by all sides, and that was what was passed into law, to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.


If anything, that whole episode is an illustration of gun owners' willingness to compromise in order to address a legitimate concern without negatively impacting the rights of the law-abiding.

[dsc]

13. The instant check is total crap

They fought to make that the standard and then fight tooth and nail to keep states from adding records to the base. The waiting period was for an effective check. The armor piercing bullet law was written after they saw the handwriting on the wall. The NRA fought and fought against it for several years before giving in. They supported the end product because they realized they were on the wrong side of a 90/10 issue.

[benEzra]

14. Citations, please?

They fought to make that the standard and then fight tooth and nail to keep states from adding records to the base.

That's news to me. Citation, please.

Currently states not only link criminal records to NCIS, but even link things like unpaid traffic tickets, child support, and being behind on your taxes.

The ONLY thing I've heard the NRA opposing adding to NCIS is whether or not you're on the Bush Admin's Terrah Watch List, and for good reason. (Do a DU search on "No Fly List" to see all the problems with those lists.)

The armor piercing bullet law was written after they saw the handwriting on the wall. The NRA fought and fought against it for several years before giving in. They supported the end product because they realized they were on the wrong side of a 90/10 issue.

Show me where they opposed a construction-based standard for AP handgun ammo. Again, citation, please.

The initial bills gun owners opposed were ALL based simply on a round's ability to penetrate Kevlar, and did NOT exclude rifle calibers (nearly all of which will penetrate Kevlar like it's Saran Wrap). I would certainly be interested in any proof to the contrary...but I don't think there is any. They certainly questioned the scope of the problem, but they did NOT oppose a legislative solution that didn't infringe the rights of the law-abiding.



But I would reiterate that even if you were correct--which IMO you are clearly not--those issues all have ZERO relevance to the gun-control debate today, which is largely about legislating the shape of rifle stocks, placing antediluvian limits on magazine capacity (the current Bradyite proposal is only 10 rounds (!) for rifles and handguns, 5 rounds for shotguns, and they've gone even lower in the past), outlawing the keeping of a loaded gun for self-defense, and so on. Not about armor-piercing handgun ammunition and background checks.

Nor is the gun control debate about the NRA. It is about gun owners, and in our context here on DU, primarily about gun-owning Dems and indies like me. If the NRA vanished tomorrow, the gun issue, and its pitfalls, would be no different than it is today.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

31. Came across this today...

American Hunters and Shooters Association (www.huntersandshooters.org)

I've been saying for years that as a liberal gun-owner, I wanted an organization that would take a moderate approach toward gun rights (any sane person knows there must be limitations) and go back to the earlier NRA mission of supporting conservation and promoting shooting sports.

Looks like I may have finally gotten my wish. As soon as I find my wallet (don't ask), I'm going to join.

[benEzra]

33. AHSA is a front for the gun control lobby...

their founder and Executive Vice President is anti-gun activist John Rosenthal, cofounder of Stop Handgun Violence, one of the more extreme anti-gun organizations in the nation. If you don't remember Mr. Rosenthal, he's the genius who calls over-10-round handguns, as well as the most popular target rifles in America, "weapons of mass destruction whose only purpose is to kill as many people as possible without having to stop and reload." SHV doesn't believe the gun laws in Massachusetts are strict enough.

AHSA wants to enact Massachusetts-style gun control nationwide, wants to outlaw all civilian guns holding more than 10 rounds (5 for shotguns), and supports outright bans on rifles with handgrips that stick out. Their positions are similar to the stated positions of the Brady Campaign, and not far from those of the Violence Policy Center.

The ASHA web site plays to the small minority of gun owners who hunt AND don't currently own anything the gun-ban lobby is after at the moment. That boils down to maybe 10% of gun owners.

If they were for real, they'd drop the ridiculous support for the Protruding Handgrip Ban (all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides) and the antediluvian 10-round capacity limit. But their positions reveal they aren't about defending gun owners at all; they are just another group pushing for more bans on nonhunting guns.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. Never head of the guy...

And their website doesn't have any of the information that you've cited and frankly, I'm not sure that I care a rip one way or the other about whether rifles with pistol grips are banned or not.

[benEzra]

36. If you owned any, you might care...

And their website doesn't have any of the information that you've cited

If Operation Rescue started a front group called the American Abortion Rights Action League, ostensibly to defend abortion rights by pushing for "reasonable limits" on abortion--and the founder/executive VP happened to be the cofounder of Operation Rescue, and the current president had made a $5000 donation to the anti-abortion lobby during the 2000 election--do you think they'd put that on the AARAL website? And whether they did or didn't, would you take them seriously as a pro-choice group?

Go to the AHSA web site and find their leadership page. You'll see John Rosenthal as president of the AHSA Foundation and Executive VP of the AHSA. Now Google "John Rosenthal" and "Stop Handgun Violence." You'll find, yes, he is the cofounder, and he's the same guy.

frankly, I'm not sure that I care a rip one way or the other about whether rifles with pistol grips are banned or not.

I personally don't give a rip whether or not bird or skeet shotguns are banned,* because my wife and I don't hunt, don't shoot skeet, have zero interest in either, and will probably never own a shotgun.

My wife and I DO own rifles and pistols for recreational target shooting and defensive purposes, though. We care very much if THOSE guns are banned. So, I'll support your right to own a conservatively styled hunting gun, as long as we have the same right to own our nonhunting guns.


Just out of curiosity, what kinds of guns do you own, if you are comfortable discussing it in this venue?





*After, all, those .729 caliber weapons of mass destruction were the weapons of choice of the Columbine killers... :eyes:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. I own three

.12 gauge shotgun, Marlin .30 cal, and a .22 rifle.

But as Brian Schweitzer said, "I own more guns than I need but not as many as I want."

[benEzra]

47. That's a versatile battery...

My wife and I lean toward the historical and recreational (we both enjoy shooting, and we are both history buffs).

My wife's:

Collectible Russian SKS45 (Samozaryadniy Karabin Simonova Obrazets 1945g), 7.62x39mm carbine, made in Tula, Russia in 1952. Caliber similar to .30-30 Winchester.

Glock 26 9mm handgun (with Glock 19 magazine).


Mine:

Antique Russian/Finn M39 7.62x54mm bolt-action rifle (collectible); 101 years old this year (receiver date is 1905 and is stamped with imperial crest of Czar Nicholas II. Ballistically similar to a .30-06.

Polish M44 7.62x54mm bolt-action carbine (collectible); made in Radom, Poland in 1952.

Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, 5.56x45mm (.223) carbine--my first rifle, purchased in 1989 when I was 18.
Romanian

SAR-1 7.62x39mm carbine, 2002 model (Feinstein ban compliant). Caliber similar to .30-30 Winchester.

Smith & Wesson 9mm handgun.



If we had more disposable income (our 7 y.o. son is chronically ill), I'd probably have an AR-15 in the safe in lieu of the mini-14, and my wife has her eye on a Colt M1911-pattern handgun, but those are both in the "someday" category.

Like you said, "I own more guns than I need but not as many as I want."

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. You gotta love a woman who owns a Glock...

or else!

[MrBenchley]

43. What's even weirder and more perverse

is the notion that letting one of the scummiest industries in existence operate unregulated represent any sort of "right" for Americans.

Meanwhile, we're asked to pretend that there are umpty-ump million voters who don't have any problem with the GOP's policies and corruption as is, but who would switch sides in an eyeblink if only Democrats made smoochy noises about their phallic fetish.

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. personally I agree with you. But in semi-rural America it will not sell.

No other domestic issue confounds Europeans more than America's domestic gun culture and gun fetish. I absolutely agree that it would be better if much stricter gun laws were a politically viable position in the U.S. But, unfortunately it is not.

In rural upstate New York and small-town western PA where I grew up a gun control supporter is simply not electable; period. I wish that was not so. But it is. Many if not most working class people who are natural New Deal/Great Society Democrats will not under ANY circumstances vote for a gun control supporters. They would vote for an atheist NAMBLA supporter who ran a head shop and an abortion clinic before they would vote for a gun control supporter. Believe me, I am not exagerating. They think guns are sacred. It might sound crazy. It probably is crazy. But that is how they think.

I agree with everything you say about the gun lobby and completely agree that there should be strict gun control laws.

But it just will not sell in large parts of America. And it will keep Democrats from being electable in large parts of America. I wish this was not true. I suspect it is a major reason why Democrats lost much of any hold in small town and rural America and a major reason why the Democrats lost their majority. I really, really wish this was not true. Objectively we need more gun laws. To you and me that is obvious.

What do we do?

[lonehalf]

82. Not just rural..

Areas of Georgia.

In Atlanta Savannah, Augusta, Brunswick, Macon, and Marietta it's a big issue.

Georgia is absolutely against banning guns.

I know, I do phone polling for the Democrats, my party.

[Douglas Carpenter]

85. I'm sure you're right

once I left that part of America I have either lived abroad or in San Francisco, Santa Cruz, CA or Boston, MA. There gun control would be very popular among most people. But very few supporters of gun control even in northern urban liberal strongholds would make support for gun control a litmus test issue.

So this is the difference. Many gun control opponents who are a minority of the overall population of the U.S. would make it a litmus test issue. While very few supporters who are the vast majority would make support for gun control a litmus test issue.

That's just how it is. I don't personally agree at all. In fact I vehemently disagree. But this is the political reality; whether I like it or not.

I should add that very very few advocates of gun control would ever consider banning guns. Nonetheless this mythology that gun control measures that have been the law in every single stable democracy on the face of the earth for a long, long time are somehow the first step toward banning guns is a widely held notion that extremist groups like the NRA have been very successful at propagating with the financial backing of the gun industry. And unfortunately a lot of gullible people fall for this nonsense. Still the fact that it is a lie doesn't matter in politics. It is widely believed. In politics perceptions is almost always more important than reality.

I still have to conclude--unless perception changes-- building a progressive Democrat majority would be impossible if the party continues to be identified with gun control. Those who wish to bring about strict gun control laws need to change that perception if they do not want it to be a political liability that makes the Democratic Party unelectable in large parts of America.

[MrBenchley]

96. So your claim is that Georgia would go for gay rights,

reproductive choice, affirmative action, etc., as long as they get to keep their shootin' arns?

I believe you. Thousands wouldn't.

[MrBenchley]

89. You're not going to fetch the lunatic fringe, Doug....

"Many if not most working class people who are natural New Deal/Great Society Democrats"
Your fantasy aside, someone who rejects every part of the Democratic platform including gun control is not likely to switch over because we started pandering to their fetish. Such a person is NOT a Democrat.

[Douglas Carpenter]

98. unfortunately in large parts of America the NRA line is mainstream

not lunatic fringe. And unfortunately a lot of gullible people fall for this nonsense. Still the fact that it is a lie doesn't matter in politicss; if it is widely believed. In politics perceptions is almost always more important than reality.

I think I have made it clear to you that I completely 100% agree with you that America would be a much better place with a lot fewer guns and strict gun control laws.

But if it is rejected by large geographic portions of America among people who would otherwise vote Democratic; but are single issue - litmus test voters who will simply not vote for any candidate who is identified with gun control; we cannot and will not win a Democratic majority as long as that is the case. If we simply dismiss millions of voters as lunatic fringe and ignorant hayseeds -who are otherwise sympathetic to the Democrats on most other issues-we are not going to win a Democratic majority as long as that is the case. What are we going to do-try to build a Democratic majority exclusively from the urban areas of the Northeast the West Coast and a few scattered college towns and artistic communities?

Those who wish to bring about strict gun control laws (and I absolutely do include myself) need to change that perception if they do not want it to be a political liability that makes the Democratic Party unelectable in large parts of America.

Again I completely agree with you that America would be a much better place with fewer guns and strict gun control laws. But we have to work with political realities whether we like it or not.

[MrBenchley]

113. Not so....

In fact, the NRA long ago drifted out on the fringe....

[Ken Burch]

122. Of course then again, with your unquestioning support of globalization

you're all for letting the REST of the "scummiest industries in existence" wipe out the ecosystem and establish absolute dominance over the poor and the working class all over the earth.

For myself, I'd always moderation on guns combined with a progressive, populist program on the rest
to tough gun control and conservatism on the rest(which is what the DLC gave us in the '90s).

[MrBenchley]

133. Aw, poor Kenny.....

[Ken Burch]

147. No, not poor at all.

Just in solidarity with the poor. Unlike you, who is in solidarity with the rich.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Agreed, that survey was utter bullshit

Even the NRA supports some gun control legislation that is currently on the books. Unless you support the right of every American to own a fully automatic AK-47, a grenade launcher, and a tank then you support gun control and you don't support the second amendment as an absolute.

[benEzra]

105. True...

and as a gun owner who supports the National Firearms Act, most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the armor-piercing bullet ban of '86, the background check law, and so on, I resent the implication by some that I "oppose reasonable restrictions."

Just because I don't support outlawing rifle handgrips that stick out or Civil-War-era magazine capacity limits does NOT mean that I oppose all regulation whatsoever.


I support restrictions on slander, libel, and child porn also, but that does not mean that I'm OK with the speech limits that Jerry Falwell wants.

[lonehalf]

81. I can tell you this..

If we run on anti-gun proposals we will lose on just that issue most of the time.

I do phone surveys for the local Democratic Committee and that is a hot issue in Georgia.

And all I ever talk to is members of the Democratic Party (statewide).

[Jed Dilligan]

5. Is that all libertarian means?

Unlimited gun ownership? I'd hope the guy has something to say about the war on drugs as well. If not, he's just a politician, no one I'd work for.

[snowbear]

11. The only Libertarian candidate I've ever met...

...also was head of the local "Legalize Marijuana" organization..

In the debates his issues were "guns and pot for everyone!"

Actually.. ... he wound up getting a lot of votes from members of all parties..

[MrBenchley]

46. Libertarianism is nothing but

spurious rationale for greed and ignorance.

[Telly Savalas]

59. Libertarianism is the belief that government is bad unless its doing

things I like.

[ruggerson]

15. Libertarian Dem is a phrase Kos made up

it is not how Schweitzer describes himself.

[benEzra]

16. I think it's a good phrase...

and it distinguishes civil-liberties Dems, of which there are many, from the live-my-way-or-else Communitarian Dems that tried to be the face of the party (especially the DLC) in the '90s.

Believing that the government exists to run people's lives for them is NOT a progressive value, however much the repubs and communitarians may try to portray it as such. That concept is a throwback to pre-Enlightenment times, when the government DID exist to run the lives of the "little people" for the benefit of the elite.

[Beacho]

17. What the hell is a 'communitarian'?

Is that the updated version of 'statist'?

That being said I support the second amendment, as well as the other nine amendments, and think that rights to gun ownership should be a liberal issue.

I have a pretty wide libertarian stripe in my political thinking, but that phraseology is more cultish(akin to the scientology term 'supressive') and really turns people off.

The issue is too important for divisive perjoratives.

[benEzra]

18. The "Third Way" philosophy...

propounded by Amitai Etzioni and others, that strongly influenced many DLC thinkers in the early '90s. In a nutshell, it's the philosophy that one's responsibility to the community is more important than one's individual rights.

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

Communitarian agenda:

http://www.etext.org/Politics/Progressive.Sociologists/marthas-corner/The_Communitarian_Platform



My own take on communitarianism is that it's a blend of traditional Left and Right, taking the most authoritarian elements from each end of the spectrum and combining them into an Orwellian whole. The difference between communitarianism and statism is that communitarianism seeks to make the oppressing authority local, rather than national. It is diametrically opposed to the traditional progressive outlook (based on the Enlightenment), and in my view is something of a pre-Enlightenment throwback.

President Clinton was an outspoken admirer of of Etzioni, and Hillary Clinton's book It Takes a Village can be construed as communitarian in outlook. William J. Bennett (right-wing authoritarian) is also a communitarian, and W's "compassionate conservativism" is seen as incorporating communitarian elements.

[Solon]

19. Actually, I view the DLC as being more...

for lasseize-faire capitalism, while at the same time restricting the rights of citizens to excersize control over the economy. Mostly Neo-Liberal in trade policy, rather hawkish in foriegn policy, and also rather stupid on first and second amendment issues. To be honest, I don't really care that much about 2nd amendment issues, the current laws are enough, I would say, I just wish they would treat ALL arms the same. My state has a CCW law, the Repukes passed it DESPITE it failing in referendum. I want to be able to carry my sword around in public dammit, its covered by the same amendment, so why can't I get a permit to do so? Hell, it wouldn't even be concealed, its too damned big. :)

[benEzra]

21. In Florida, a carry license covers both firearms and edged weapons

but the law requires that the weapon be concealed. So if you could conceal a short sword, or carry an epee in a cane, that would be legal in Florida. I don't think you could carry a rifle or shotgun on a FL permit, even if you could conceal one, but I don't remember off the top of my head.

I do have an NC carry license, and it is restricted to handguns only (no long guns, swords, or non-exempt knives).

[Solon]

25. That's interesting, so people can carry daggers in Florida?

I know many areas of the country actually outright BAN all edged weapons that are double edged, or are a certain blade length. Switchblades are also banned in many places, or restricted at least, though I view those as a coward's weapon anyways. Kinda like Crocodile Dundee, someone tried to threaten him with a switchblade and he pulled out his knife, saying "THIS IS A KNIFE". If our CCW licenses weren't restricted to firearms, I'd probably carry around my foot long blade dagger, though its not exactly practical as a weapon, sharp as a razor blade, but would probably shatter in a fight. Its leaf bladed, I liked the design. My sword is a plain Irish longsword, hand beaten and not machined an all, made with high carbon, rather than stainless, steel, and isn't really fancy. Liked the craftmanship of it.

I was being slightly sarcastic you know.

[benEzra]

27. If you have your local law enforcement agency fingerprint you;

you undergo training in self-defense law; have the FBI run a thorough background check, including running your prints at the Federal level; shell out two or three hundred dollars to the state in fees; and wait a month or two for the state to examine and process your application; then, yes, you can carry a dagger in non-prohibited areas as specified by the law, as long as you do so discreetly and responsibly, carry your license with you at all times, and notify the state immediately if you change address.

People who go through that aren't ones whom I would worry about being irresponsible with it. You'd be in a lot more danger at your local SCA meeting, I suspect. (You wouldn't happen to be a Scadian on the side, would you?)

[Solon]

58. Well, been fingerprinted twice by different Police Departments...

First time when I was 10, or thereabouts, my friend's uncle is a cop and he gave us a "tour" of the local department, and jail. We got fingerprinted, etc. it was actually fun, plus we got to see the inside of a jail cell too. The second time was for when I was hired to be a security guard, so my fingerprints are on file in at least two different cities. Though I don't know if the FBI has a hold of them. Other than that, getting a CCW permit is too much hassle for too little gain, to me at least, don't own a gun, don't NEED a gun, at most I go target practicing with Bow and Arrow.

[benEzra]

77. Yeah, hard to conceal a bow!

My wife has a number of friends who are into period archery (SCA), and some of them have some really neat stuff. Archery is Zen.

I'd love to pick up a basic fiberglass or laminate recurve bow just for target shooting in the back yard, but I really don't know where to look.

[Beacho]

20. I think it muddies the waters

I believe the bullshit 'Third way' is just 19th century corproatism couched in a progressive 'set dressing'. That being said, I don't think it has anything to do with right or left, except for the phrasology.

I'm, curious,what do you consider examples of 'local authoritarianism'?

[benEzra]

26. Jackbooted homeowners' associations...

that want to run the neighborhood like a fiefdom in the name of "property values,"

City zoning boards that think like a bad HOA.

Your child's school telling you what you can and can't feed your child while they are at school.

Local ordnances that outlaw smoking sections in businesses.

Traffic enforcement cameras, particularly speed cameras.


But despite the rhetoric, I think most of the communitarian platform is aimed at taking power at the state or national level. The "local" part seems to be mostly rhetoric, used to justify the coercion.

[Telly Savalas]

60. Can you point to some instances of progressives trying to run people's

lives for them?

[benEzra]

63. I don't consider communitarians true progressives

since the communitarian philosophy is IMHO a throwback to pre-Enlightment authoritarian thinking. But there are some self-styled "progressives" who advocate the following:


Bans on smoking sections in restaurants and bars, no matter how well isolated. Anti-tobacco fundamentalists in general. I don't smoke and don't like smoking, but geez, some people need to get a life.

Helmet laws, even when you're riding a bike on a scenic highway with no traffic. I'd personally wear a helmet when commuting, but what happened to my body, my choice?

Attempts by groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest to limit our food choices, "for our own good."

Interfering in the doctor-patient relationship. Sidney Wolfe and the Public Citizen Health Research Group managed to take a critical medication away from my chronically ill son (who was 2 years old at the time) because it was being misprescribed to adults, so they drove it off the market. The generic alternative drug they left on the market was FAR more dangerous to my son, far less effective, and my son lost the ability to eat solid foods. That was more than five years ago; my son has not eaten solid foods since. He has *almost* regained the ability to eat baby foods, at age 7. Almost.

People who want to legislate the shape of rifle stocks.

People who want to run the country like some damn homeowner's association.


Communitarian moralists and public health nazis exist in both the Republican and Democratic parties, but none of them are progressives in the traditional sense of respecting the rights of the individual.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. The first two effect other people, though

1) If people are smoking in a restaurant even if the smoking section is isolated, there is still second hand smoke in the building's air (unless the smoking section is outside). The employees of that restaurant are inhaling that second hand smoke 8 hours a day five days a week. Clearly there is a safety in the workplace issue involved here as well.

2) If you fall off of your bicycle and crack your head open and don't have health insurance, taxpayers pay for your ER visit.

[benEzra]

78. Thoughts...

(1) I'd be fine with air quality standards for nonsmoking sections; I was referring primarily to blanket bans, of the type that make it illegal to even have a smoking section, no matter how well isolated. And the general attempt by some to make smokers pariahs, the new lepers.

(2) That's true of ANY activity that isn't the healthiest possible choice, whether rock climbing, hang gliding, drinking alcohol (ban it?), having non-monogamous sex (ban that?), eating more calories than you expend, failing to exercise, etc.

If you sit on your butt watching TV instead of riding a bike helmetless, you will end up costing the taxpayers FAR more, because you are going to be charging Medicare for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and dementia (and the per-helmetless-cyclist absolute risk of head injury is very low, whereas the per-couch-potato absolute risk of Syndrome X is VERY high). Would that justify mandatory-exercise laws?

#2 is a violation of the rights of others ONLY if (a) you don't have health insurance, AND (b) people have the RIGHT not to pay taxes to fund other people's health care. The easiest solution would be to figure out how to get health coverage for everybody, since even most freepers don't believe in premise (b).

[Hippo_Tron]

87. Fair point about #2 but how do you isolate a smoking section?

If the smoking section is in the building, the chemicals are going to be in the building's air no matter what. The employees of the restaurant are still going to have to breathe in the chemicals from the second hand smoke. Now if the smoking section is outside of the building I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[benEzra]

100. Easy--proper airflow.

Smoke doesn't flow upwind. Have a semi-isolated section inside the restaurant with an exhaust fan always on, so that air always flows from the nonsmoking section into the smoking section and then exits the building. Easy to enforce with a simple air quality test in the nonsmoking section; you could set indoor air quality standards IF that were what the antismokers were after.

I've been in plenty of restaurants so configured, and it WORKS. My wife has asthma and is allergic to cigarette smoke, but it's not an issue at all in a well-designed restaurant.

[Hippo_Tron]

107. Assuming what you say is scientifically sound

And I'm definitely giving you the benefit of the doubt because you sound like you know what you're talking about, then I'm okay with that. I'm just mostly concerned about the workplace safety of the employees. Not requiring safety laws on second hand smoke seems just as bad to me as not requiring safety laws on machines in a factory.

I like to consider myself a libertarian also, but when it comes to traditional democratic principles like workers' rights, I tend to veer toward the more authoritarian left.

[MrBenchley]

114. Bear in mind that Ben's "solution"

Calls for EVERY restuarant to be extensively remodeled (at great expense to the small businessperson), just to accomodate a tiny knot of selfish addicts.

[Hippo_Tron]

118. Well Ben's solution is optional

The law could be written so that if restaurants want to have an indoor smoking section, they must be remodled to have such a system. Otherwise, they can choose to not have a smoking section or they can put their smoking section outside.

[MrBenchley]

136. Or smoking could be banned

for a lot less effort for anyone.

Say, remind me again....which political party does Big Tobacco support?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/09/boehner-western-union/

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=322

[Hippo_Tron]

143. Big tobacco supports Republicans

As do many other industries. And I don't see the problem with offering such a system as an option in the law. Either you install a filtration system in your restaurant or you can't have an indoor smoking section. Personally, I probably wouldn't spend the extra money to install the system but if a restaurant owner wants to spend the money and effectively neutralize the harm from second hand smoke then that should be up to them.

[benEzra]

150. Let's ban alcohol consumption, too...

since "secondhand alcohol" kills, what, 20,000 people a year via drunk driving and alcohol-related violence?

If you support banning tobacco consumption in restaurants, but not alcohol consumption in restaurants, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

[benEzra]

123. No, it wouldn't...

Bear in mind that Ben's "solution" calls for EVERY restuarant to be extensively remodeled (at great expense to the small businessperson), just to accomodate a tiny knot of selfish addicts.

No, it wouldn't. FWIW, most restaurants around here already appear to be set up that way; as I mentioned, my wife is highly allergic to cigarette smoke, and we have no problem going out (other than financial!)

Incorporation into new construction isn't a big deal. And most restaurants are remodeled periodically anyway.

Your concern for the small businessperson is touching, but what if said small businessperson WANTS to have a smoking section in her/his restaurant or bar, or even to open a smoking-only establishment that caters to smokers? No, that would offend the antismoking zealots; smokers aren't allowed to break caste and all that.

Air quality standards for nonsmoking sections are the best way to balance the rights of everybody involved, and make a LOT more sense than a blanket ban of the type you advocate. But it wouldn't send the same "We Hate Smokers" message that a blanket ban would, so I guess it doesn't pass muster for the public health fundamentalists.

[MrBenchley]

137. Sure it would, Ben....

[MrBenchley]

90. Environmental laws, anti-trust laws, anti-racketeering laws....

It's truly horrible how those big government liberals interefere with upright citizens like Sun Myung Moon (owner of at least THREE gun factories)......snicker!

[benEzra]

101. And I didn't use any of THOSE laws as examples, did I?

I'm not talking about somebody's "right" to put pollutants in other people's water, or some corporation's "right" to oppress other people. Such "rights" do not exist.

What I AM talking about is the attempt by people like you trying to run other people's lives, in the ways that I mentioned in the above post.

[Guaranteed]

130. That's kind of odd, because a looooong time ago...

probably 12-14 years ago, when I was first being introduced to politics, when I heard the term "libertarian" I associated it more with Democrats than Republicans. As in, "civil libertarian."

But libertarianism has really taken on an almost purely Republican meaning, nowadays. Can't say that I really understand that, considering that it's the Republicans who go around telling people who they should be praying to, what drugs they can put in their body, that they can't burn flags, that criminals shouldn't have rights, what people can do in their bedroom, and, more generally, that people shouldn't have the level of privacy in their homes that was intended by the framers of our Constitution. I think Dems have lost that libertarian edge due directly to the gun control issue.

[MrBenchley]

139. You're absolutely right....

The only people Libertarians are fooling these days are the self-deluded....

http://www.rlc.org/

http://www.afn.org/~afn04641/opinions.html

http://gopliberty.blogspot.com/

Matt Drudge, a no nonsense libertarian"

www.enterstageright.com / archive/articles/0904/0904freep.htm

""I'm a libertarian," John Stossel proudly proclaims. "But I don't often say that except to an audience like this because the term libertarian is confused with 'libertine' or even worse, "liberal.'"
Addressing a lunch meeting of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, a libertarian-leaning think-tank, Stossel..."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/savage/cst-fin-terry154.html

"At the libertarian Cato Institute, vice president for legal affairs Roger Pilon said Roe distorted the idea of privacy ..."

www.inboxrobot.com/news/CatoInstitute

Walter Williams -- Libertarian

www.self-gov.org/williams.html

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Ammunition for poverty pimps by Walter Williams

www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ walterwilliams/2005/10/26/172901.html

"The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy connects like minded Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans."

http://o.webring.com/hub?ring=tvrwc

[paulk]

22. Montana's largest city has less than 100k people in it

I doubt Schweitzer's gun position is going to play well with Democrats living in high population areas - where guns and gun violence are a real problem. It's a strategy that may work in rural areas, but city people want gun control.

[Beacho]

24. I'm a city mouse

and while I believe in reasonable gun control(ie background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill), I by no means support the notions put forward by Handgun Control INC, or like minded groups.

[benEzra]

28. City people where?

Not all people in cities share the views of D.C., Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco.

You don't think there are big cities in pro-gun states? Washington, Oregon, Georgia, Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, etc. etc. have sizeable cities and are VERY pro-gun.

Only a very small percentage of gun owners live in highly rural areas, although gun ownership rates are probably somewhat higher in those areas than in more built-up areas. Certainly hunters are concentrated in rural areas, but most gun owners aren't hunters.

[paulk]

32. the point is - bigger cities have more voters - the ones you

mention have LOTS more voters - and those voters are usually Democrats - so, as a strategy to win elections, as the OP opines, I have to question... how good of an idea this is. According to a recent Harris poll - by a margin of 71 to 11 Democrats favor stricter gun control. If you're aiming for the Republican or perhaps independent vote, maybe this works. But you still have to win the primary.

We had a presidential primary candidate in the last election who had a high NRA rating and favored state's rights when it came to gun control - and he didn't do very well. You could make the argument that it wasn't that issue that caused his defeat - but, I'll tell you, it was one of the primary reasons I didn't support him. And I'm a Democrat living in a large city in a state that is pro- gun.

[ruggerson]

37. But the big city Dem voters

don't vote primarily on the gun issue. That may be way down their list, and they certainly wouldn't vote for a Republican over a Democrat because the Democrat was pro 2nd amendment.

Whereas, it's often AT THE TOP of the list of the rural Dem voter. It is a passionate concern for some.

Read post #30.

[paulk]

40. maybe not primarily - I don't know

I do know myself and my family had to hit the floor (and stay there) cause the police were chasing a gun wielding nutjob around my house a few years ago.

Yes, it's at the top of the list for a lot of rural voters. I've even known a few. And I have, in the past, owned a gun. I'm for reasonable gun laws - unfortunately what a lot of the rural voters want isn't reasonalbe AFAIC. And they aren't the majority. And they aren't the one's dodging bullets...

[benEzra]

80. Allowing people to continue to own rifles with handgrips that stick out

is entirely reasonable. Rifles are statistically almost never used in crime--all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides:

FBI homicide stats, by type of weapon.

More likely than not, the people shooting up your city can't legally TOUCH a gun or a single round of ammunition. The .38 in their waistband was obtained on the black market. They've likely never been to a shooting range, have never received any marksmanship instruction, couldn't pass a background check to purchase a gun legally, and couldn't obtain a permit to carry a gun even if they cared about licensing requirements--they just carry anyway.

Attacking law-abiding gun owners--especially rifle owners--in an attempt to "do something" about gun crime is completely irrational. But the anti-gun lobby isn't after gun criminals; it's the law-abiding that are their primary target, as their attempts to ban rifles demonstrate.

unfortunately what a lot of the rural voters want isn't reasonalbe AFAIC

What do you think we gun owners want? (Most of us aren't rural, BTW...we're mostly suburban, although gun ownership rates are somewhat higher in rural areas.)

[paulk]

83. well, a rifle was used at Columbine

and that was the Denver suburbs...

It is way too easy to obtain a weapon illegally in this country. That's what worries me. The handgrip issue etc. - that afaic is
the usual NRA scare tactic "they're going to take away your guns". People backing those kind of restrictions are a minority inside the antigun lobby.

The fellow the cops were chasing around my house was a former CIA Vietnam special ops vet who had enough ordinance hidden in his basement to start a small war. And he was living right next door to me. And strangely enough, :tinfoilhat: , the DA declined to press charges after some DC suits showed up and carted the guy off to Idaho.


There are plenty of rural voters in CO who would like to go back to the good old days when they could strap on a six shooter before heading into the big city. I kid you not. I'm not ignorant about guns, I've owned them. I've worked all over Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. I grew up in rural upstate NY. I know the gun culture. I know and have known plenty of gun owners - and some of them want things I don't want them to have.

And I'm willing to vote those convictions. Statistics are meaningless when it's you or yours that's one of that 3%.

[benEzra]

86. Thoughts...

well, a rifle was used at Columbine and that was the Denver suburbs...

Actually, most of the victims were killed with hunting shotguns, a Savage-Springfield 67H 12-gauge (.729 caliber) pump-action shotgun, and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double barreled shotgun, to be precise.

One of the killers also carried a small pistol-caliber carbine (a Hi-Point 995, 9x19mm or .355 caliber), and the other a 9mm pistol (Intratec DC-9, as I recall).

The handgrip issue etc. - that afaic is the usual NRA scare tactic "they're going to take away your guns". People backing those kind of restrictions are a minority inside the antigun lobby.

You wouldn't say that if you had been following the issue closely. S.1431/H.R.2038, 2004 session, would have banned ALL civilian self-loading rifles with handgrips that stick out. That bill almost passed, because a lot of its cosponsors thought it was a ban on military automatic weapons, which are already restricted and have been since 1934. That kind of gullibility is one reason why Dems get a bad rap on the gun issue. Some gun-404 genius in the party leadership called Senators Kerry and Edwards back to D.C. on Super Tuesday to vote for that ban, which also outlawed guns holding more than 10 rounds (that vote haunted the Kerry/Edwards ticket in November, and contributed to their loss here in NC, Edwards' own home state). Senator Feinstein brings up this bill every year.

A handgrip ban is already law in California, and nationalizing it is one of the prohibitionists' top priorities.

The fellow the cops were chasing around my house was a former CIA Vietnam special ops vet who had enough ordinance hidden in his basement to start a small war. And he was living right next door to me. And strangely enough, :tinfoilhat: , the DA declined to press charges after some DC suits showed up and carted the guy off to Idaho.

That's already against the law. What you apparently have is either a bad case of cronyism, or else the FBI wanted to use him as an informant against somebody else.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. But we have to win the electoral college

And as flawed as that system is, it's the system that we have. Big cities can't win us the presidency alone.

[paulk]

84. yeah, I know

and if voters continue to pin on single issues like this

especially gun owners

I suppose we'll get the government we deserve.

[MrBenchley]

49. Hilariously, Ben...even rural voters support gun control....

The only groups opposed are these sorts of "jeniuses"......

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/U_S_gun_owners_accuse_U_N_of_July_4_conspiracy.html?siteSect=143&sid=6834232&cKey=1150927708000

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653298/posts

[benEzra]

57. As do I, MrB...

Hilariously, Ben...even rural voters support gun control....

As do I, MrB. You and I just differ as to degree. I believe restricting automatic weapons, sound-suppressed firearms, guns over .50 caliber, etc. etc. etc. is entirely sufficient; you would go further and legislate the shape of rifle stocks, or ban guns entirely. Fine, you have your gun-ban utopia in New Jersey; keep it and enjoy it. I'll not be moving there, don't worry.

But honestly, how in touch are you with working-class people outside New Jersey, especially working-class people with guns in the house? You can certainly share how the urban New Jersey resident views guns, but your state has by far the lowest rate of lawful gun ownership in the entire nation, except for the District of Columbia.

[MrBenchley]

91. It shows...(snicker)

[AX10]

23. kick

[rniel]

29. They should not ignore

what's going on in Montana. Democrats in control of the state??? How'd that happen??? Democrats had better figure out why.

[Zodiak]

30. I am a rural Democrat

raise in North Texas. I know that a populist message will resonate in red states. No one cares about my liberal positions on economics...they actually agree with me. What they do not like about Democrats are the social issues, especially gun control.

If a Democrat came to them with a populist message and let them say their prayers before their football games and keep their guns as is, they would vote Democratic, I promise.

Red state, blue state....bullshit. We all put our pants on the same way. The issue is really rural vs. city, and both should leave the other well-enough alone.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

35. Two Americas...

With apologies to John Edwards, any gun control law that would seem perfectly reasonable in rural areas would sound like a invitation to slaughter in urban areas. Gun control that statisfies people living in and around our urban shooting gallaries would sound like "confiscation" to people living out near the woods. How do we satisfy both parties? Hey, I'm not that smart!

[Zodiak]

42. Make it a municipality or a county-level issue.

That is the level of resolution to the problem, so it should be the level of resolution for the remedy.

Like I said, the rural areas should leave the cities alone, and the cities should leave the rural areas alone. This can only be done on a county-by-county or city-by-city level.

But standing up for the common man consistently on economic issues will win elections every time...even in "red" areas. I honestly believe that.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

50. I agree, but in some cases, it doesn't work

I read somewhere that something like 70% of the traceable firearms used to commit crimes in Massachusetts (tight gun laws) can be traced to other nearby and far-away states. Guns can cross borders just as easily as people.

But as I said, if I had the answer, I be a genius.

In red states, gun laws are part and parcel of the "common man" package. We can support health care and decent wages and all that, but if we advocate too-restrictive gun laws, we lose votes.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Politically, you customize your politicians for the red states

Run candidates that take solid populist stances on economic issues and conservative stances on social issues. Ted Strickland is a good example of this. Ben Nelson is a shitty example of this because he votes with the GOP on economic issues.

[ruggerson]

38. This one post

should be required reading for everyone on DU and for every strategist in the Democratic party.

[MrBenchley]

45. So in other words

we should continue to let Americans get shot at third world rates, AND ignore what Americans actually want (the chart that accompanies the Schweitzer profile is truly illuminating), just to jolly up a tiny clot of yokels too dumb to konw what their interests are?

No thanks.

[ruggerson]

56. Nationally gun control damages our side

because the "Reagan Dems" vote on this issue.

Urban Dems don't.

[MrBenchley]

88. Not even close to true....and hilariously disingenous

If it were remotely true, you'd see Republicans running around shouting "We put assault weapons back in stores" and "We're fighting to keep gun shows free from background checks" and "We kept Sun Myung Moon and Gaston Glock free from lawsuits by pesky gunshot victims."

But in fact, even the Republicans that oppose it have to pay lip service to gun control, because other wise they'd be left with the screwlooses out on the lunatic fringe.

[benEzra]

102. Alternate reality...

since "assault weapons" were NEVER "removed from stores," so nobody "put them back," and the overwhelming majority of sales at gun shows involve background checks (check the figures on % of FFL vs. private sales yourself).

As I've said before, you have your little gun-ban utopia in New Jersey. Keep it, fine with me. But the number of states that have chosen to enact bans like yours, you can count on one hand.

[MrBenchley]

115. Hell, Ben, you're never within hailing distance of reality

[benEzra]

126. OK, show me in the 1994 Feinstein ban where the law

removed assault weapons, as you define them, from stores.

It didn't remove anything from stores. Its main effect was to raise the price on replacement magazines for full-sized civilian handguns, like the Ruger P89 and the Smith & Wesson 5906.

[MrBenchley]

138. You're still not within hailing distance

[benEzra]

152. The law banned essentially nothing, and you know it.

It exempted all firearms and magazines manufactured prior to September 1994.

It exempted all post-'94 firearms that didn't have two or more listed features and weren't marketed under a banned name.

It didn't even effect prices of rifle magazines, civvie AK-47 lookalikes, or AR-15 type target rifles. It did drastically raise the price on replacement magazines for full-sized handguns, but it didn't remove anything from stores as you claim.

[ruggerson]

108. So where are the massive hordes

of Democratic voters screaming, marching, wailing and stamping their feet, pleading for more gun control as their urgent number one priority?

I must have blinked and missed them.

[MrBenchley]

116. Hell, even I don't think its the number ONE priority

But if you think there's no support for it, you ought to open your ears.

Meanwhile, I'm always amused to tsee the sort of speciemsn who put theiur crappy little hobby ahead of the good of the country, and then act outraged that other people don't feel like parroting the same rancid and dishonest creed as David Duke, Randy Weaver and Fred Phelps.

[ruggerson]

121. Honestly I could give a rat's ass about guns

don't even own one.

But if giving the impression that we're good ole boy friendly helps us flip a couple of red states and delivers the WH, I say rugers for everyone!

[MrBenchley]

134. So tell us...

Do you honestly think that there's somebody who's perfectly okay with an illegal war, open corruption, gas-gouging, tax cuts for the rich, open bigotry and all the rest of the Republicans' noxous creed but who would happily switch over if some Democrat made smoochy noises about his gun fetish?

Face it. Somebody who rejects every part of the Democratic platform including gun control is NOT a Democrat. And the gun rights shitheels hate Jews, blacks, gays, Mexicans and uppity women as much as they love them guns. They ain't voting Democratic unless Strom rises from the grave to lead the Dixiecrats again.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. Guns are completely illegal in Washington DC

And look at the murder rate there.

I'm totally with you about stopping gun violence, but the problem is a lot more complex than just a lack of adequate gun control laws. I don't know what the perfect solution is, either, but I know that gun control laws themselves are going to solve the problem.

BTW, Montana has one of the lowest murder rates in the country.

[MrBenchley]

92. So who thinks the problem in DC

is that there aren't ENOUGH guns?

"the problem is a lot more complex than just a lack of adequate gun control laws"
Funny, which group of politicans are discussing real solutions to those problems? The ones pushing for meaningful gun control, or the fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus?

[Hippo_Tron]

97. The ones who are talking about the underlaying social problems

That cause gun violence which tend to be the ones who are advocating more gun control laws, but not always. Ted Strickland, Howard Dean, and Brian Schweitzer have all addressed these problems and all of them have also embraced the gun loby to a certain extent.

And instead of replying to your other post I'll just address the issue here. I don't think that we should by any means bow to the will of the gun nuts. That said, as an electoral strategy senate seats in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, etc. are very important especially since they can be won without spending a lot of money because advertising is so cheap in those states. At the very least, we need to address how we frame the issue of gun control.

[MrBenchley]

112. I've always found it funny to hear folks here

try to pretend that the only way to oppose the crap of folks like John AshKKKroft and Deadhearet Dick Cheney is by limply parroting their gun rights gibberish.

I'd love to know how Dean embraced the gun lobby: he was a "Rockefeller Republican" governor, but as candidatye he advocated (as all but the lunatic fringe do) closing the gun show loophole and banning assault weapons.

I yet to see how Schweitzer's "support for the gun lobby" runs any deeper than "anti-gun John Kerry." All he remarked here is that he owns guns.

And as for pro-gun Ted Strickland, here's a typical gun rights supporter discussing him...

"Ted Strickland may say he is for gun rights, but it appears that he would be comfortable with more restrictions on guns."

http://www.kenblackwell.com/Blog/BlogPost.aspx?ID=482

[Hippo_Tron]

67. To a certain extent I agree

But also, the right wing has become incredibly good at always dividing the country. School prayer and guns may be the wedge issues du jour but if we cave on those, it won't mean that wedge issues will go away. If people continue to listen to Rush and watch FAUX news, they will still be convinced that they shouldn't vote democratic because of some wedge issue or another.

[Zodiak]

74. This is not caving in

this is allowing to live and let live. Restrict guns in the cities if the cities agree to it, but allow the people to keep what they have in the rural areas because that is what they want.

Fix the economic problems and the trouble with guns will diminish because well-fed people who have good jobs do not typically engage in crime.

Many in the South have stopped listening to Limbaugh and Faux news because of recnt history. They are disillusioned with the Republicans, but they still hate Democrats because of a couple of issues. Any populist Dem with a message of hope for the People by teaching them that their government can work for them will gather a bazillion votes as long as this person allows rural people to live the way that they want to. That is not a very tough compromise considering the unfortunate alternative, in my opinion.

Many may disagree with me, but then again, many do not. A message like this sure beats the mealy-mouthed corporate message many Southern Dems are touting nowadays. I'd rather work with a populist, myself.

[alarimer]

68. Prayers before football games are blatantly unConstitutional

unless you are talking about private schools. I think there needs to be a manadory course in constitutional law in high school so people understand why this shit cannot be allowed to happen. I don't care if it is in some backwards small town somewhere; the Constitution applies everywhere. we cannot give in on this because some ignorant hayseeds want to pray before football. They can do it silently or privately if they want, but not over the loudspeaker or any of that shit.

The Democrats cannot pander to the right wing. They will never get those votes no matter how much they play up the economic issues. The right wing has totally demonized the Democrats on social issues; the NRA has captured the whole gun issue. The NRA is the lunatic fringe on gun rights, not the Democrats.
Personally, guns are not a huge issue for voting. I hate guns and will not have them around me at all. But obviously other issues (choice for one) have a larger impact on me personally (or at least potentially). I will not vote for an anti-choice candidate, not matter what their other stands but I could overlook a candidate's stance on guns as long as they are pro-choice and generally progressive econmically.

[Zodiak]

73. Perhaps the fact that you call them "hayseeds"

is part of the problem, eh?

They like doing things the way they have always been done, and that means praying before football games. Some fella calling them "hayseeds" that is not from that area will garner little attention, let alone votes.

This issue is not pandering to the right wing. Giving money to religious groups is pandering to the right wing. This issue is someone from the outside telling these people what to do when they have been perfectly happy as they are.

Ignoring the basic idea that people are proud of their little "hayseed" heritage is one of the great mistakes that has caused the Dems to lose to the Southern strategy. It is causing us to lose in Iraq, as well, but that is another thread.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. I'll admit there is a practicality issue with prayer at football games

According to the law we should deport all illegal immigrants but we selectively enforce the law because it's simply not practical to do this. I agree that there is an iron clad seperation of church and state. But is stopping prayer at football games the best use of enforcement powers? It's a tough question.

[benEzra]

79. "Choice for me, but not for thee..."

The Democrats cannot pander to the right wing. They will never get those votes no matter how much they play up the economic issues. The right wing has totally demonized the Democrats on social issues; the NRA has captured the whole gun issue. The NRA is the lunatic fringe on gun rights, not the Democrats.

Half of gun owners are NOT republicans. Respecting the right of the law-abiding to own guns--particularly nonhunting guns--is hardly pandering to the right wing. Alienated Rural Democrat

We gunnies are not advocating anything radical here. We're saying that there is no rational reason to legislate the shape of rifle stocks, set pre-Civil-War magazine capacity limits, or ban classes of guns (rifles, shotguns) that are almost NEVER used in crime. Since all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides, why is it SO damned important to ban rifle stocks with handgrips that stick out?

Personally, guns are not a huge issue for voting. I hate guns and will not have them around me at all. But obviously other issues (choice for one) have a larger impact on me personally (or at least potentially). I will not vote for an anti-choice candidate, not matter what their other stands but I could overlook a candidate's stance on guns as long as they are pro-choice and generally progressive econmically.

If I read you correctly, you are saying choice is good, but only for issues that are important to YOU.

Turn it around and look at it from the perspective of someone who is strongly pro-choice on the gun issue. Read your above statement in that context, and you'll see where we are coming from.

[paulk]

76. I would be fine with different laws - rural vs. city

but what do you do when a city passes a gun law that applies only to that city and the State House overturns it with a state law? A law written specifically for that reason?

Happened in CO a few years ago when the Republicans still controlled the State Legislature. It's not always just the city folk trying to force their views on rural folk - sometimes it's the opposite.

[skipos]

39. The # of people I know who don't vote dem because of guns is frightening

It is a pretty stupid single issue if you ask me. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who votes for dems just because of gun control. Might just be my personal experience, but who knows?

Schweitzer is great.

[MrBenchley]

44. Good job explaining REAL issues, there......

[skipos]

51. Huh? I was just telling my personal experience.

And adding that I like Schweitzer.

Is this my first MrBenchley spanking? :spank: Usually we are arguing on the same side (though I try to be less insulting than you do).

[MrBenchley]

52. And I was just commenting....

And I think that Schweitzer's line only plays where cow chips outnumber voters.....

[skipos]

53. For me, his appeal has nothing to do with gun ownership

I own a gun, and it doesn't effect my vote in the slightest. He comes across as a regular person, not a politician, and I like that. His down to earth style is able to bring a progressive agenda to people who normally avoid anything having to do with a librul. Alas, he hasn't been governor for that long. We'll see...

[ruggerson]

55. You're right skipos

Schweitzer's appeal is that he's a populist. The real deal kind of populist, a la Teddy Roosevelt or Truman.

Benchley's not often wrong, but he's wrong on this one.

[ruggerson]

54. That's pretty much the entire US

where bullshit outnumbers voters

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Yet each state where cow chips outnumber voters...

Still has 2 US Senators and a minimum of 3 electoral votes. If not for Schweitzer's success in Montana, getting Jon Tester elected to the US Senate this year would be a lot more difficult and as a result it would be a lot more difficult to get a majority in the senate.

[MrBenchley]

94. So the rest of us should live our lives

by the lights of underpopulated yokel land? Fuck that noise, as we say in Brooklyn.

[benEzra]

104. So the rest of us should live OUR lives...

by the opinions of urban New Jersey communitarians who hate anybody who disagrees with them?

Live and let live. Live your life the way you want. Run your state the way you want. But keep your damn laws off MY body, and your sticky fingers out of MY gun safe.

[derby378]

106. Feinstein and Schumer are the past - we are the future

Represent, y'all!

[MrBenchley]

110. Yeah, you and Deadheart Dick Cheney (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

109. The rest of who, Ben?

the jeniuses wailing to the UN?

"urban New Jersey communitarians"
LOL!

[benEzra]

61. I stand in awe of your distinguished eloquence...

just to jolly up a tiny clot of yokels too dumb to konw what their interests are

I stand in awe of your eloquence, and your skill at spelling.


As far as extending your gun-free utopia to the rest of the country, some old guy said it better than I could:

Пάλιν δ̀ὲ̀ του̑ Ξέρξου γράψαντος 'πέµψον τὰ ὅπλα' ἀντέγραψε 'µολὼν λαβέ'

[MrBenchley]

93. What a cute cut and paste, Ben....

I'm sure we all beleive you can read Thucydides in the original as you fumble with your popgun....

Up top you got no clue what the gun lobby is up to, but down here you're spouting ancient Greek (snicker)....

[benEzra]

99. My degree and master's work were in English Lit,

but I know enough Greek to conjugate the verbs and do the noun declensions (at least I used to!), and have enough vocabulary to locate what I'm looking for in a text, even if I have to consult a lexicon to read it.

That passage wasn't from Thucydides, but is attributed to Plutarch as part of the Moralia (III, Apophthegmata Laconica, Sayings of Spartans). It describes the response of King Leonidas I of Sparta to the demand of Xerxes I to surrender their weapons. Their refusal to do so led to the battle of Thermopylae.


Translated, the passage reads as follows:

To Xerxes' demand "Hand over your weapons," he (Leonidas) replied, "Come and take them."

[MrBenchley]

111. I'm too busy laughing about you being one of the jeniuses

fretting over the UN.....

"That passage wasn't from Thucydides"
Yeah, Ben, I'm hip.

[ruggerson]

120. A jenius (sic)

Is that Barbara Eden's much smarter sister?

[MrBenchley]

135. No that's the sort of bobo writing to the UN

a-feared that the UN is going to take his popgun....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2349439

[HootieMcBoob]

62. Dean also was a favorite of the NRA as Gov of Vermont

it didn't stop the Republicans from painting him as an out of touch big city liberal. i agree that schweitzer is great but until democrats learn how to fight back against these jerks it won't matter.

[MrBenchley]

95. It didn't stop the NRA from attacking him, either....

And fo course, you'll notice that those supposed hordes of "trigger happy rural labor usetabe Democrats cowed by gun control and driven from the party" turned out to be as real as Saddam's WMDs, and that Dean finished far back in the pack.

[benEzra]

103. ...after he came out in favor of the Protruding Handgrip Ban...

but he was A-rated by the NRA until then.

[MrBenchley]

117. Known here on earth as the Assault Weapons Ban

[benEzra]

124. "Weapons of Mass Destruction," eh?

So, I guess Hiroshima was actually destroyed by a lone U.S. soldier with a 15-round Smith & Wesson pistol, and Nagasaki was destroyed by a civilian rifle with a handgrip that stuck out.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch has always been based on hyperbole about stock shape and such, but calling any NFA Title 1 civilian firearm a "WMD" is quite a stretch even for the prohibitionists.


"Assault weapons":


Preban Marlin Model 60 squirrel hunting rifle



Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle



Benelli 12-gauge turkey hunting shotgun



Hammerli small-caliber competition target pistol


"Weapons of mass destruction," indeed...

[MrBenchley]

132. You're as clueless as ever, Ben....

[benEzra]

153. Funny, the gun on the left was NEVER BANNED...

and more AR-15 type rifles were sold 1994-2004 than in the previous three decades combined, ever since the Colt AR-15 hit the civilian market in 1961.

Do you have any idea how rarely AR-15's are used in crime, even though it's arguably the most popular centerfire target rifle in America? Considering that all rifles combined account for just 2.8% of homicides, and the most common rifle used in homicides is the lowly .22 rimfire plinking/squirrel hunting rifle. But you gotta keep the fearmongering going...

[derby378]

129. So, MrBenchley, what's an assault weapon?

I doubt even Josh Sugarmann can give you a good definition - just some sort of "touchy-feely" gobbledygook.

[MrBenchley]

131. They're the guns dickless fuckwits crave, derby

If you really don't know, what the fuck is it to you?

[derby378]

141. I'm thinking more in terms of a, you know, DEFINITION

The terms pistol, shotgun, machine gun, and even assault rifle have actual, established technical definitions. So what's an assault weapon?

:popcorn:

[MrBenchley]

142. I'm thinking that once again, here's bad faith by the trigger happy

Trying to stick up for the point of view of fuckwits like Tom Delay and Dick Cheney.

I've said more than once, I'm quite happy with the definitions put forth in S. 620 or S. 645...both of which are bottled up in committee by the Republican scum of the earth.

[derby378]

145. You call those "definitions?"

Here's the relevant part of S. 620:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109Vk5T8e:e975:

And here's the text of S. 645:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-645

Not a hint of a techincal definition of the term "assault weapon" in either bill. Only a laundry list of specific models and features. Thus, in legal terms, "assault weapons" do not even exist, QED.

You want to try and pass a ban on all semi-automatic firearms? Be my guest. You have that right. But just remember what I said about "touchy-feely" a little while ago. When the Democrats take over in November, they have to do things right to prevent the Republicans from gaining a foothold in Congress or the White House for the next 40 years - long enough for the neo-cons to die out.

Me, I intend to support the Constitution. All of it.

[MrBenchley]

146. Yeah, I do....

"just remember what I said about "touchy-feely" a little while ago."
I don't consider anything the trigger happy have to say worth anything but contempt and derision, derby.

"Me, I intend to support the Constitution. All of it."
No, you don't. All you want to do is parrot the far right's lies about the Second Amendment. And you're welcome to their odious company--your embtace of their dishonest horseshit says more about you than anything I could.

[derby378]

148. And thank you for conceding my point

What else can I say? Democratic takeover in November or bust. Don't think we have room for Ashcroft in the equation.

:toast: :woohoo:

[MrBenchley]

149. You're the one trying to haul AshKKKroft and his dishonest creed in

[benEzra]

154. Meaning all self-loading rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out

I've said more than once, I'm quite happy with the definitions put forth in S. 620 or S. 645

Meaning all self-loading rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out...because, you know, a handgrip that sticks out turns an ordinary civilian rifle into a Weapon of Mass Destruction... :eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

119. Notice Schweitzer admits that he governs a state with no big cities

The guy isn't stupid and he knows that gun violence is more of a problem in cities. In a state like Montana there is very little gun crime largely because there are no big cities in the state and thus there really is no need for him to advocate stricter gun control laws. If Schweitzer were Governor of California, Massachusetts, New York, etc. he would probably have a different position on gun control laws in his state.

[benEzra]

125. Most pro-gun states do have big cities...

so it's not just limited to states like Montana with very low population densities. A pro-gun Democrat won my heavily gun-owning state 55/45 even as the Kerry/Edwards ticket lost it 45/55. The SAME voters who pulled nearly a straight Democratic ticket by a 55/45 margin went against Kerry/Edwards by the same margin, even though NC is Edwards' own home state. The only prominent Dem I'm aware of that didn't win NC in 2004 was Erskine Bowles, who campaigned heavily on a gun-control plank and was defeated by a no-name repub that nobody had ever heard of.

If all states had the same views on gun ownership as California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, then all states would have gun laws like California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Instead, the number of states with such extreme gun laws can be counted on one hand.

The party leadership's mistake on the gun issue is believing that something that flies in CA, MA, and NJ is acceptable to every state in the nation, when in fact it isn't.

[Paladin]

127. The Real Tragedy Of All This......

....is that, here in the Real World, gun rights is a non-issue in this upcoming election cycle. It's a devisive topic that shouldn't even be brought up, given the very real and important issues that the public is concerned with. But people like you aren't going to let that kind of benign neglect happen, are you? No, you're going to keep shooting your mouth off about the single issue you're hung up about, creating as much unrest, anger and public discord as possible within the Democratic ranks. Culminating with the vilification of whoever the Democrats pick as our presidential candidate, a la Kerrey's goose hunt. Thanks a whole fucking bunch.....

[benEzra]

128. It's not gun owners that keep making this an election issue...

it's people like you and MrB who INSIST that gun control is one of the most important damn issues in the platform, and fight like hell to keep stuff like the rifle handgrip ban from being dropped off the agenda. Risking election after election in order to get "just a little more" restrictions.

It's a devisive topic that shouldn't even be brought up, given the very real and important issues that the public is concerned with.

Dammit, that's what I've been saying for years. I would LOVE for it not to be brought up. For it not to be a factor AT ALL in any election.

But it's not gun owners who keep making this an issue, is it? It's the people like you who insist that regardless of its divisiveness, banning more guns is the ONE issue that can't be dropped.

What you're saying is, the gun issue should be unimportant to gun owners, but not to you, because you want more restrictions and WILL NOT DROP IT.

As I said in this thread,

Is outlawing nontraditional-looking guns really the single most important plank in the entire Democratic party platform, or will the party finally drop it--DROP IT--and move on to the issues the leadership says are more important?

We're both on the same page here, even if you don't realize it. I want this to become a non-issue, as do you, but the way to make it a non-issue is to DROP THE BAN-MORE-GUNS AGENDA. Telling gun owners to sit down, shut up, and hand over their stuff is hardly the way to put this behind us.

[Paladin]

140. Your Side Is Keeping This Issue Alive, Not Mine

If I learned one thing from those misspent years of participating in the DU Gun Dungeon, it's that gun activists will never be satisfied by the Democratic Party. No Democratic presidential candidate will ever have a sufficient portion of Wayne LaPierre's cock in his or her mouth to satisfy you people. You're the ones making the overwhelming portion of the noise about this issue. Me, I'm a lifelong Democrat ( that's "Democrat," not "Libertarian Progressive," or "Anti-Communitarian," or whatever dipshit term you and your pals are using this week), and the party's stance on guns suits me fine. You claim to want the issue to go away, but that's bullshit---you continue to loudly demand that the Democratic Party adopt a hyper-Republican position on guns, over and over again. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.....

[benEzra]

151. Keep your sticky fingers out of my gun safe

and we'll both be happy.

[MrBenchley]

144. By the way, Montana is the home of armed white supremacist groups

like the Montana Freemen, the Montana Militiia, etc. It's headquarters to far right wing loony and racist John Trochman (a star along the gun show circuit). Here's some of the other fun gun loonies are up to there...

"Green swastikas were burned to protest environmental laws. A radio talk show host regularly called for the "eradication" of "green slime" while broadcasting the addresses of local environmental activists. Lug nuts were loosened on a car belonging to an anti-hate campaigner’s daughter. While loggers and mill workers were facing lost jobs and rising living costs, right-wing extremists plied them with racist and anti-government rhetoric. Most ominously – in news that flashed across the nation and even around the world – a shadowy terror group called Project 7 was discovered with a cache of arms and a hit list of local government officials, police officers and their families. "

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:cdC5HrdTP3IJ:www.pbs.org/pov/utils/pressroom/2005/thefirenexttime/pressrelease.pdf+Montana+project+7&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&ie=UTF-8

Seems like all Schweitzer has done is toss up his hands and avert his eyes.