Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gun issue keeps rural voters away from Dems

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:30 PM
Original message
Gun issue keeps rural voters away from Dems
Whichever candidate we run nationally in '08 had better be someone whom rural voters can trust on gun rights. Lower middle class rural voters, by every measure, should be our constituency, not theirs. But we're losing them over this one issue.



http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/editorial/153...

By David Gambrel
CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST

If you look at a U.S. map that shows county by county where candidates for president have won and lost in recent elections, almost none of the counties where Democrats won are in rural areas. As a rural Democrat this greatly concerns me.

One issue that has severely hampered the Democratic Party in rural America, particularly the South,is gun control. I have found that urban and rural people sometimes have completely different views on this issue. For urbanites, guns are often associated with school shootings, gangs and crime.

When rural Americans, particularly Southern males, think of guns, it is often from a totally different perspective. To many of my friends, guns are family heirlooms. Shotguns or hunting rifles that once belonged to grandpa usually fall into the category of "it's not worth much, but I wouldn't take anything for it."

The old gun might bring back memories of opening day of a rabbit or deer season from long ago. Sometimes it is not even a whole gun.

(more)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. And among those fond memories did Grandpa also have an AK-47?
What do they call them...cop-killer bullets? Or other similar weaponry? I gotta admit they would certainly do in any rabbits, squirrels (you forgot them), or deer in Grandpa's path, wouldn't they?

Quit distorting the issue. Nobody wants to take away Grandpa's hunting rifle...except possibly George Bush who seems to be working his way in that direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Talk about distorting the issue. It isn't about AK-47's
Read the article before commenting

That brings me to a more practical reason that rural people are so staunch in their support of gun rights. When it comes to protection in rural America, more often than not, you're on your own. It is just not practical to have a law enforcement officer on every corner as it is in the city.

Even in the best circumstances, it sometimes can be 30 minutes before help arrives. My mother just turned 70 and lives alone. How can she protect herself from an intruder twice her size? Call 911? Install a security system? By the time help arrived she would be dead.

So when politicians start talking about anything that remotely resembles a threat to Second Amendment rights, many rural Americans get their dander up. I have several friends who are single-issue voters when it comes to gun control. Right or wrong, that is how they have voted and will continue to vote.

Gun control advocates would have us believe that organizations such as the National Rifle Association exaggerate the threat to private gun ownership. More than that, they would tell us not to worry, that the government will protect us.

Tell that to those law-abiding citizens in New Orleans whose weapons were seized in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. If there was ever a time in the history of New Orleans that private citizens needed weapons for protection, it was after the hurricane.

There are also those who would have us believe that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted with guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
54. Re-read my post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #54
114. It neither breaks your back nor picks your pocket if I own an AK-47
It's a gun, not a nuclear warhead. When it's not loaded with bullets, it's nothing more than a fancy club.

And if you're talking genuine AK-47s that fire full-auto, they are still technically legal in the US, but heavily regulated by the Federal government since 1934. If you saw that gun shoot in Wyandotte, OK a few weeks ago on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, you'd see that regulated private ownership is quite workable.

Semi-auto variants of the AK-47 are commonly available, but they're strictly one shot per trigger pull. And if I'm a law-abiding citizen who takes great care to secure and maintain his weapon, how does this infringe on you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
127. Misconceptions...
And among those fond memories did Grandpa also have an AK-47?

Actual AK-47's are STRICTLY controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, as are all other automatic weapons. Nobody is talking about military automatic weapons.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was an attempt to outlaw non-automatic civilian rifles and shotguns with modern styling, not military automatic weapons.

What do they call them...cop-killer bullets?

Banned in 1986, by a law the NRA helped write.

Or other similar weaponry? I gotta admit they would certainly do in any rabbits, squirrels (you forgot them), or deer in Grandpa's path, wouldn't they?

"Other similar weaponry" is already controlled by the National Firearms Act, and has been for 72 years. Red herring.

Quit distorting the issue. Nobody wants to take away Grandpa's hunting rifle...except possibly George Bush who seems to be working his way in that direction.

Grandpa's hunting rifle is irrelevant. Only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter; 4 out of 5 aren't. It's the attempt to ban handguns, and legislate 19th-century-fogey stock styling and 1860's era magazine capacities for civilian rifles, that are the problem.

I personally don't give a damn whether I'm "allowed" to own a lever-action .30-30 Winchester or a 12-gauge (.729 caliber) skeet shotgun. I want to keep the small-caliber carbines sitting in my gun safe, and my wife wants to keep her 15-round 9mm pistol, thanks.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khayembii Communique Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
136. Gun Control Is Pointless
Gun control really is a load of crap. The problem isn't the guns, but the social conditions which give rise to people killing each other with guns. Even if you attempt to regulate gun ownership, this still won't solve the problem. It's merely a "quick fix" to a much deeper problem. Besides, do you think gun control would prevent anything? People that do these crimes generally laugh at gun control laws because of how easy it is to illegally obtain a gun on the streets.

If you want people to stop shooting other people then you should do away with the conditions which gives rise to this situation; not just take the gun away. That's stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NotGivingUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #136
140. i totally agree with you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think this issue just needs to be articulated appropriately
There's no inherent conflict between responsible gun ownership and gun control legislation. Nor is an absolutist reading of the 2nd amendment a requirement for living in a rural area. Just point out that the more stringent gun control laws/initiatives are targeted at assault weapons and handguns, not traditionally associated with granpa's deer rifle. If you want to emphasize rural/urban differences, point out that gun control advocates are after (urban) criminals and the criminally responsible.

If the rural people you allude to happen to believe that any sort of gun control is synonmous with "gun grabbing" and is the act of an overweening state against which they will stand 'til death, then we probably can't win them over anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
130. IT'S NOT ABOUT HUNTING RIFLES...
the alienation among rural and suburban gun owners comes from those attempts to ban handguns and modern-looking small-caliber rifles, not hunting rifles. Only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. I am not against "hunting rifles" - I want assault weapons banned
I don't care if you want to go deer hunting; why can't there be a law that bans heavy duty
kill weapons (like mini machine guns) and permits recreational lightweight hunting rifles.
I am not so naive to believe that guns will ever completely disappear but I do have a problem
with assault weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redneck Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Fully automatic weapons have been highly regulated since 1934.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 07:53 PM by Redneck Socialist
You can still get one if you have the money and are willing to put yourself through an extensive background check. For most folks it's just not worth the hassle.

If you want a scary looking black rifle, well you can get those, but they still just fire one round each time you pull the trigger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. what about the Beltway Sniper
I believe he had what they call the Bushmaster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Bushmaster is not an assault weapon as properly defined
And a hunting rifle would have been much more damaging and effective that the Bushmaster.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. I dunno seemed pretty effective to me
in that in every case the sniper was not close to his victims and was not seen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Any Rifle
would be effective. A rifle , by definition, is an offensive tool. It allows the attacker standoff capability.

My target rifle would be just as or more effective for that purpose. Again rifle from .17hmr up to 50bmg would effectively kill a person.

He was within shotgun range and was not seen because he used his brain as a weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. what is the most effective way of having guns
so they are primarily used to protect people (I assume this would be against) intruders or
for light hunting; what is the safest guns to be proposed for wide distribution among our
population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Shotguns
and pistols are great for self defense. They are also very lethal. A shotgun is a great home defense weapon. 10% of pistol shootings lead to death 90% of shotgun wounds are lethal. A dog that barks is better.

Rifles are rarely used in crimes. They are hard to conceal. They are a standoff tool in the civilian world. (Military and police use short barrel automatic rifles and sub machine guns)

The problem is that any weapon can be used to kill people or for legitimate sporting tools. The person using the gun determines the outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. I can't see the average teenage boy sneaking around with
a 22 rifle like my Dad had, he would not be able to conceal it inside his jacket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. Saw off
the stock in front of the grip and cut the bbl down to size.

That was a famous tool during the depression.

A poor mans version of this (this is a military weapon, not available to public)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. nah, I am telling you, the average teen age thug
will only have a sawed off shotgun if somebody sells him one, he is NOT going to do the work
himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #52
58. Or if he steals
it from someones house. There are bezillons of double barrel shotguns that can be made concealable and illegal in 30 minutes.

Someone will do the work if the demand is there. Again the problem is the demand for the tool. A person intent on getting a gun will find one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. what about a lock mechanism
for your gun that you could easily operate but a thief could not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. If it was 100%
fail safe sure. I keep my weapons locked in a safe. I have a dog. However any mechanical system can be bypassed. The lock on a stolen 100K german car is a great example of breaking a system designed to prevent unauthorized use.

The problem is the intent, not the mechanism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. You are probably the exception
My dad had a gun in every corner and a pistol under his pillow. What about him? I think a gun
lock would have been a good idea with him. Like something that would respond to your thumbprint
or something quick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #67
74. Locking
them in a safe when you are not at home is a smart thing to do. The problem is not the guy with a shotgun in his closet, it is the person using it for violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #74
78. I agree it's the street weapons that are the problem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #67
96. The technology isn't that advanced, and what about gloves?
Let's say it is winter, I am outside with gloves on and need to shoot the pistol.

Even if I don't have gloves on, there is the question of how reliable that print reader is going to be. What if my hands are dirty? Or there is dirt on the reader. Or the batteries are dead.

If I need to defend myself, I can't take the chance that the reader may fail.

My wife has a CCW, and we chose the very simplest .38 available, because simplicity means greater reliability.

BTW - In the past year, she has used her gun twice to prevent being mugged. No shots fired, would be mugger ran away - fast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #52
103. When I was young, back in the 1950's, teenage criminals,
often made "zip" guns. Those were made from a car radio antenna, some rubber bands, and some small pieces of wood. They fired a .22, and were single shot.

Making a shotgun from two pieces of pipe and an end cap is extemely easy. Once you have the right sizes of pipe, you can do it in a few minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
102. The most effective depends on many things.
What purpose is the gun going to be used for? When we got the CCW for my wife, she had never fired a gun before. We got a .22 pistol for basic practice of the fundamentals of shooting. Ammo for it is cheap, and the recoil is light. Since she wanted to be qualified with a autoloading pistol (Commonly called an automatic), we got a .380 for her next step up and to shoot the qualifing course with. But her carry gun is a .38 revolver.

A hunting rifle will depend on what you are hunting, and what level of challenge you want. If you are a really good hunter, you may want to use a single shot rifle, because you are super confident that you will only need one shot.

And there is a certain pleasure to just having and firing certain types of guns. There are many different range sports (That means all shooting is done on a safe firing range) that require many different types of guns.

There there are cowboy actions shooting sports, and for those you dress old western style and use old western type guns.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
42. see my post on traceable weapons
Let me say again, I don't object to responsible people having guns, I want some way
of dealing with those who abuse their rights. I think traceable weapons would be
the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
49. You can make a shotgun
out of 2 pieces of pipe fitted together.

The problem is the mindset that allows violence as an accepted reaction to some problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #49
59. You don't understand
These are young and immature teenagers, they are not going to do anything like "make" a gun,
they steal gas out of your car for their motorbikes so they don't have to pay for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. They pay
someone to do the work with money from selling another illegal thing that is overpriced. Drugs. 1000 dollars of crack money for a $100 shotgun with parts removed.

Crack money pays for someone to make an illegal weapon or provide one. There are millions of weapons in circulation. It is impossible to remove them..

The problem is not their existence but their use by criminals. There is no way to fight this with technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. there has got to be a way
you are intelligent man, you know a jillion things more about weapons than I do then there has
to be something. Okay, you and I agree, that I am now going to worry about responsible owners
just someone in my alley; so what about the bullets, what about making them traceable to the buyer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #66
71. My opinion
is that the weapon is a small part of the problem. I think people should be responsible for storing weapons safely. Locking them in a safe when not being used for defense (ie when you are not home) is a smart thing to do.

Beyond that I do not think that regulation of firearms beyond what is already there will help. Dealing with the motivation for violence is the problem that needs attention.

Poverty, hopelessness, mass psychology that chokes people onto thinking they have no place in our society.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. also guns are easy to buy on the "street"
too easy for criminals to get/I think its the criminals that are making it hard for the
responsible owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. Exactly
Hopefully a way can be found to address the demand for illegal forearms to be used in violence.

Addressing supplies (drug war) is difficult, addressing the demand is also difficult but more effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #79
85. Well, we could do it
My father used to get a lot of laughs with this story. He used to say "Why is it that we can't
do anything about the War on Drugs, there's planeloads of drugs that nobody can find flying into
this country every day. My daughter told me that 2 grapes jumped off a boat from Chile that
were sprayed with cyanide. Those grapes were stopped faster than you can say "California Raisins."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #42
104. All guns have serial numbers stamped into them. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #23
129. All of those shots were at point-blank range...
35 to 90 yards, well within the capability of a Revolutionary War era flintlock.

The .223 Remington is the LEAST powerful of all common centerfire rifles, and is only about half as powerful as a typical deer rifle.

FWIW, to see what a hunting rifle can do in the wrong hands, go back to the Texas Tower shootings, in which the shooter used a medium-caliber bolt-action hunting rifle, caliber 6mm Remington. Several victims in that shooting were shot at distances in excess of 500 yards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redneck Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Yes he (they?) did use a Bushmaster.
The Bushmaster is a semiauto, that is, it fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. Yes it looks similar to the weapons our troops are carrying in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, but appearance aside, its similarities end there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. As a former employee
of the us army ng and having spent time in the armory I can tell you that a Bushmaster black rifle is not an m16a2.

Some parts are interchangeable but you could not just take a few parts and make a machine gun. Attempting to do so is a 10 year mandatory felony. You will not do ten years for most murder and rape.

The army (national guard) strictly accounts for any parts that could be used for conversion.

They could have done much worse with a bolt action 308.

Some of the survivors that survived a hit from a low impulse 22 caliber weapon may not have survived a hit from a .30 cal round carrying much more energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brokensymmetry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Then we are destined to be political opponents.
How unfortunate - we'll spend our energy fighting
each other, instead of working toward real solutions
to health care, employment, education, and a host of
other issues we surely agree on.

For you see, I like my assault weapons. And thus
shall it ever be. Please note that I do not argue
the point; neither of us will ever change the other's
views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. well, that's a shame, 2 people were murdered in the next block
the police never found their killers, never will, one was a father with 2 teenage girls, a working
man, the other a 17 year old boy. I am sorry, but in the city, these things happen, and the
killers are not always found and punished like on Law and Order. Heck, I grew up in a samll
town, my father liked his hunting rifle but the people in the next block are still dead, and
guns on the street still flow like a river through Baltimore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. OD, How many people
die from overdose on drugs that are technically illegal. Any person with a small amount of effort can acquire an illegal drug or weapon. That is a given. Making something illegal for me, does not impact the person who does not use the legal channel.

I do not own "assault rifles" because they serve no purpose to me. I shoot accurate rifles for competition and hunt for soup.

Assault rifles as sold are not useful to me. A shotgun is useful for defensive purposes. The killing mechanism in the m16 is its ability to accurately place a 3 shot burst into an enemy. Its controllability firing bursts or even in full auto (m4) are useful. A semi-automatic low impulse rifle is pretty worthless, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. I was thinking about this
Since you are a law abiding citizen, how about this idea, I think that those 2 people should not
have died, it was not their choice. What about a gun that would have a signature just like a fingerprint and if the gun was used in a crime, it would be proven to belong to Joe Blow at 2930
Cherry Street. And if he wanted to sell the gun, then it would be regulated just like the MVA
is, you don't just dump your car w/o the government knowing. We all know that there are big
bucks to be made in guns and that they are dumped in big cities like mine to do what they are
made to do which is kill people. I think that is wrong, I don't care if you go out to a gun
club or belong to the NRA, it's your right, but I want to live my life and have some peace of
mind and that's my right to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. I could steal a car
with a screw driver. The idea is good but in practice there would be problems.

There are millions of guns now, there is no way to retrieve them.

I do not have an answer to the problem. I do believe the root of the problem is socio economic. That must be addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. well, we must go forward then and have chips in new guns
Just because the man across the street from me has an old Cadillac with no emissions control,
doesn't mean I should not have one with my new car.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. Technology is not ready and from a CONOPS perspective the wrong way to go
If the situation has come to shooting, not being able to use the gun at hand is a serious detriment. Also the system has to ALWAYS WORK. Again, not possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #53
73. I still like my idea on traceable bullets
People are against guns because criminals are so successful doing their thing, if the perps
could be caught more easily and rogue guns taken off the street then I think everybody would
be happier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #73
95. CA may try that, but its unworkable
Too many already out there, and many of us make our own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #44
56. Some high percent
of murders are solved. Greater than 50%. The problem is the mindset that using lethal force is an acceptable response to some problem.

Chips would make catching people easier. People would still kill. Until the problem is solved these measures are stop gap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #56
69. well, I know there would still be crime
but if catching and convicting people was easier then lives would be saved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #31
105. There is another reason why the military likes the 5.56.
Your reasons are correct, but there is another reason. The ammo is smaller and lighter, so a soldier can carry more rounds. The basic combat load for the M-14 was 100 rounds. For the M-16, you can carry much more ammo at the same weight and the same space. So when the M-14 guy would be out of ammo, the M-16 guy is still going strong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #105
124. Yep
Most shots fired in anger are used for cover fire..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalArkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. You will loose the election
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. well, I don't believe innocents should be butchered by
brazen criminals and that is what is happening here, I am for responsible gun ownership but
that is not what I see here in Baltimore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
41. What about those who would be butchered if they did not have guns?
One of the most hotly debated stats WRT to firearms is unreported defensive use. The NRA will tell you it happens every day, every where, when a perp realizes they are up against an armed person, they back off. HCI and the Brady Bunch will tell you it almost never happens. The truth is somewhere in between. Measuring it is impossible, so both sides will continue to stridently make their claims. I have personal experience that says that it happens and it works, but I can only hazard a guess as to rates.

I know the situation in Baltimore well. Violence is tolerated in the poor areas. The perps are known and not adequately prosecuted. Gun courts would help address that issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. Well, maybe there is hope for gun courts
and shoring up our juvenile justice system, that is where the problem is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. define assault rifle
Do you mean a machine gun? They are banned.

"Assault Rifles" are generally semi-automatic rifles with internal workings that use the same mechanical systems as semi automatic sporting rifles.

The VAST majority of crimes are committed with pistols. These acts are already illegal. Like shooting heroin or prostitution.

Banning thing increases their price but not their availability.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
97. That law is ALREADY on the books, since 1934. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
128. All automatic weapons have been restricted for 72 years now...
an "assault weapon" is not a mini automatic weapon. "Assault weapon" is a buzzword used to refer to a NON-automatic civilian rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out, or to any civilian firearm that holds more than 6 or 10 rounds.

All automatic weapons are VERY tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Four out of five gun owners are nonhunters, so hunting rifles are a small niche issue and almost completely irrelevant to the gun issue as it stands today. We want to keep our handguns and our modern-looking small-caliber rifles, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. One issue alright, Gun rights are just code for bigotry.
One issue, hell. Gun rights are a cowardly way out to say you're against liberals over guns rather than admit one's a bigot. Here's an exerpt from the famous Charlton Heston speech that David Duke loved so much.

"Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens. The message gets through; Heaven help the God fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle- class Protestant-or even worse, evangelical Christian, Midwestern or Southern- or even worse, rural, apparently straight-or even worse, admitted heterosexuals, gun-owing-or even worse, NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff-or even worse, male working stiff-because, not only dont you count, you are a down-right obstacle to social progress. Your voice deserves a lower decibel level, your opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and frankly, mister, you need to wake up, wise up, and learn a little something from your new-America and until you do, would you mind shutting up?"

Don't believe me that this speech was bigoted? Here' what Julian Bond, Gloria Steinem and others beside David Duke thought about this seminal speech.
<http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/statements.html >

Whatever happened to guns protecting us from fascism? That turned out to be a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Bigotry indeed, from urban so called progressives who are actually
doctrinaire ideologues. Their narrow minded anti weapon bigotry is costing the progressive movement in every election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Every liberal nation in the world has stronger gun laws than USA
Jesus never said to "shoot thy neighbor".

"anti weapon bigotry"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Swiss and Finland
have loose laws. Suppressors are used in finland for hearing protection for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Make my point, Switzerland and Finland have high murder rates for Europe
Look at Ireland with Japaneselike gun laws. Sure is impressive.

<http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
51. Switzerland
is every bit as france.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #51
76. Difference in Switzerland vs France is Switzerland's higher gun homicide
How about those French riots and the lack of shooting deaths?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. Murder in france
is committed with knives. The man tortured to death and then having his throat cut comes to mind.

Police reported gunshots fired at them.

The swiss and fins have easy access to military weapons but do not use them in crime. That is worth further study.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #80
112. You saw the charts, Switzerland&Finland are higher,Ireland has almost none
It's obvious to all who will see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
29. look we are debating ideas here, not insulting people
tell us what kind of laws you think are fair what are you proposing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
47. Sensible ones, which are not what we have now...
Something like this for starters

1) Gun training in HS like Drivers Ed. IT would reduce the fear factor, and increase competency. This is especially important for women.

2) Issuance of gun owners card based on background check, training, etc. Revoked or suspended upon criminal conviction, restraining order etc. Verifiable via instant check when purchase is made. Issuance could be automatic at 18th birthday and 21st birthday.

3) Automatic issue of concealed carry permits upon proof of training within the last three years and current gun owners card.

4) Concealed carry permits good in all states and municipalities




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #47
57. Well encouraging intelligent gun ownership is a good idea
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
122. No matter how many times you say that, it's still bullshit
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. never underestimate stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parisle Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
8. A Pragmatic "Bravo"
----- I believe the saying is that Bible Belt politics turns on "Guns, God and Gays," eh? Growing up as a rural southerner, and living now in a small (though affluent) Virginia bayfront town,... let me assure you that guns come first. All my "liberal" friends have guns, and I have several. And what's more, I'm fairly well convinced that private citizen ownership of firearms is the single greatest long-term roadblock to the PNAC and corporatist agenda in the US. Gun control advocates didn't piss me off in the late 70's and early 80's,... but now they just impress me as self-absorbed and short-sighted. And in case there is any doubt in anyone's mind, the suspension of 2nd amendment gun ownership guarantees, and the wholesale collection and removal of guns from the population IS among the looming imperatives of those who want to rule the world from Washington. And they don't entertain such plans out of sympathy for urbanites or crime victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
38. I agree...
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 08:56 PM by sendero
... Dems need to make assurances that "gun ownership of law abiding citizens is a basic right".

I truly believe we lose more votes over this stupid issue than any other. And the fact is, the sort of gun control that some Dems push for will accomplish not one single damn thing for the country - any crook that wants to have a gun can get one and they don't give a damn about some stupid law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalArkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. To win the election : It should not be the federal gov business to
regulate guns.. It should be left to the individual localities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
34. Imagine it that was the way all rights were done...the South would still
be segregated and womens rights including abortion would be unheard of.

It is the role of the Federal Government to protect right granted to all citizens. State and local governments can add more, but can not take them away.

More of the progressives need to understand that the private ownership of weapons including semi auto and handguns is in fact a bedrock progressive value.

The HCI/Brady Bunch are not progressives and are not good for the progessive movement


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #34
132. Sarah Brady *IS* a committed Republican...
and is probably the best recruiter and get-out-the-vote operator that the repubs have...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
15. In a sane world, this is a battle worth fighting ......
Sadly, the world is as far from sane as I can imagine.

I am personally as anti-all-guns as one can get. But right now, for me, it is on pretty much the same level of importance as sexy video games and flag burning. It is a fight for another time and another place.

I have compromised my personal view to one that holds that gun laws should be as local as the Constitution might allow them to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
18. If A Gun Served Any Other Purpose Besides Killing, I Might Feel
sympathy. So, maybe a hunting rifle has a useful purpose. Otherwise, if you don't intend to off your fellow man, you really haven't a need.


Come the second American revolution, I will arm myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
106. Is preventing my fellow man from killing me a valid purpose? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
134. Hunting isn't killing?
If A Gun Served Any Other Purpose Besides Killing, I Might Feel sympathy. So, maybe a hunting rifle has a useful purpose. Otherwise, if you don't intend to off your fellow man, you really haven't a need.

Hunting isn't killing?

I don't kill anything with my guns (like the vast majority of gun owners, I don't hunt). BUT, they do serve as a last-resort option for defense of self and family.

If guns are only useful for killing, then all our family's guns must be defective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
20. Agree and a seminal report is "Winning the Gun Vote", 16 Oct 2003
Winning the Gun Vote
QUOTE
Overview
Americans widely believe that there is a right to bear arms but many -- gun owners in particular -- do not believe Democrats share this belief.
As gun owners represent almost four in ten Americans this perception impedes efforts to create a durable Democratic majority.
Silence is not the answer since Democrats who do not speak out on gun issues are presumed to oppose gun rights.
By becoming both pro safety and pro gun rights, Democrats can do right on both the politics and policy and make a realignment of a sizeable portion of gun owners possible.
These gains can occur without losing either Democratic base voters and while gaining among swing voters who reject the traditional GOP-backed alternative positioning.

Methodology
Penn Schoen & Berland Associates conducted 802 interviews on October 1-6, 2003 among likely 2004 presidential election voters. Margin of error for the entire sample is +/-3.46 at the 95th confidence interval and higher for subgroups.
UNQUOTE

The 2004 Dem Platform 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, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do." See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Unfortunately several prominent Dem Senators use their positions to demand bans on handguns and other firearms and never say their position is contrary to that of the Democratic Party. As a result, independent voters believe Dems are gun-grabbers. Clinton and Gore both say losing the gun-vote was a major factor in Gore's defeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Are you for guns in schools, churches. bars and malls?
A vast majority of Americans are against this notion of unlimited "gunrights".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #32
43. Somewhat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #43
70. You're "somewhat" for guns in schools, bars, churches, malls, courthouses?
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #70
94. Indeed, somewhat
There are times and places for weapons in all of those places and more...

Gun belong at school in firearms safety classes and at the school range.

Bars are reasonable as well, providing the one carrying them is not drinking. Also having one under the bar for use if there was a robbery is quite legitimate

I know a number of pastors who shoot and hunt. Nothing wrong with storing their weapons in the parsonage.

Malls are effectively public access areas. I have no problems with someone with a current concealed weapons permit carrying there.

Guns are not inherently evil, and can be reasonably taken just about anywhere, as they are tool. Then again, I don't have the same anti gun bigotry some are afflicted with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #70
107. I rountinely carry at the mall.
I don't want to get mugged in the parking lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
24. I'm a rural Dem too but haven't heard anyone mention
gun ownership as the reason to vote a certain way since the late 80's, early 90's, while complaints about property/school taxes and have never ceased. Maybe we should compromise and run a "guns for tax breaks" program, bet we'd see heirlooms voluntarily turned in. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
83. I have had several people tell me that the sole
reason they don't vote Dem is because they think all Dems are anti-gun. Even if I tell them otherwise, they still see it that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
33. That's passe
Gun ownership isn't a potent wedge issue these days. People are more worried about the economy and having enough money to retire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
46. Its a very real issue in rural louisiana
i hear it mentioned all the time.

Dean's position would nullify that GOP weapon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalArkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #33
50. I hear it all the time at work, people who really are liberals at heart,
but would never vote Democrat. They would not vote Democrat because "all the Democrats want to do is take away my gun and make everyone have sex and then abortions." I am a liberal because I am a Jesus type Christian, not a Moses type "Christian" like Bush, Robertson and Falwell. Jesus told me to turn the other cheek when I was beaten. He told me to forgive not get vengence. Just because I could not shoot anyone for any reason does not mean that I should not allow someone else to do it, if they thought it was alright to do so.

I enjoy shooting guns at times. I do not own any at this time though. But because I am liberal and a Christian, I do not believe it is my place to force others to believe like I do. Jesus never forced anyone to do anything. He layed out how he wanted us to relate to one another though.

I believe we should quit try being everything to everyone and stand up like the hippy's did in the 60's. They changed the Democratic party to a party of one that served the people. One did not want the poor, hungry, homeless and the naked to stay that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #50
62. I'm sorry, but anyone who genuinely thinks that . . .
"all the Democrats want to do is take away my gun and make everyone have sex and then abortions" probably can't be reached.

We can moderate or explain our position on gun control more clearly, but they're not going to hear us. Is it possible that you're understating the subtlety of arguments that such people are willing to face?

If you phrased that as: "Democrats don't like guns; they're responsible for the coarsening of our culture so that I don't know how my own children are going to grow up as moral people; and their position on abortion makes me really queasy . . ." -- then I think we might have something to talk about with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #50
68. Welcome to DU!
If those people are more worried about their guns than their jobs or their retirement security, well I don't think there's much Dems can do to help them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #33
135. You know why?
Gun ownership isn't a potent wedge issue these days. People are more worried about the economy and having enough money to retire.

You know why?

Because the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was allowed to expire, Dianne Feinstein has been marginalized on the issue, Charles Schumer has STFU about banning guns and has moved on to more important issues, Howard Dean has dropped the AWB issue and is saying No New Federal Bans, and the DLC strategists who made banning more guns the party's Holy Grail during the '90's have realized that that was a colossal mistake.

Good.

But if the ban-more-guns types ever get back in the driver's seat on the gun issue, the gun issue WILL again become a major wedge. Which is why I say, just drop it, and let each state set its own course on the issue, instead of trying to cram California- style gun bans down the throats of gun owners nationwide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
40. Hmmm, a certain four star general pops into mind....
... ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
55. Some day, we'll learn. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sn102291 Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
60. Gun Issue
I think the real issue is that as Democrats, we should focus much more on assault rifles and concealed weapons and that sort of thing, as opposed to hunting rifles. While many Democrats already feel that way, we need to get this distinction across much clearer. I have no issue with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. What I do have a problem with is criminals having easy access to more firepower than the police.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. Yes, how do we resolve that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. Its useless
I've tried for the last 10 years to discuss sensible gun ownership policy with gun owners but the bottom line is - they don't listen. No matter what you come up with they still refuse to believe that Dem will not take everyone's gun away and outlaw them completely.

People that narrow minded and ignorant aren't worth the time or effort. No matter what you tell them, they ignore it and repeat the GOP talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sn102291 Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. True
In that case, the only thing to do is leave quickly before they start shooting and find someone else to talk to. Americans may not be brilliant, but not all of us are stupid-some people will understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. Dems have had a moderate policy
since 1992. Did you know that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sn102291 Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #81
113. Yes, but
The issue is not whether I know it, but whether some one issue Republican knows it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #81
137. Fighting to outlaw civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 12:08 PM by benEzra
Dems have had a moderate policy since 1992. Did you know that?

Fighting to outlaw civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, and to limit civilian guns to Civil-War-era magazine capacities, was NOT moderate. In the eyes of many gun owners, that was extreme, particularly since rifles of any type are rarely misused. All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides, and many states report zero rifle homicides in any given year.

The gun-ban lobby hatched the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch to make sweeping gun bans sound moderate to those unfamiliar with guns or Federal gun law. That doesn't make the bans themselves moderate.

And what has this "moderate" ban-more-guns stance done to the party's fortunes since '92?

Party leaders managed to get the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch passed in 1994, by a single vote in the House. Since then, the party has lost the House, the Senate, and two presidencies over it, races that would arguably have been won by significant margins were it not to the ban-more-guns agenda.

Had Gore won TN and WV in 2000 (which he lost on the gun issue), he would have won the Presidency WITHOUT Florida. Kerry's cosponship of the draconian S.1431 in 2004 hurt him badly among gun owners, whether the gun-ban lobby considered it "moderate" or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #72
82. well, I think we progressed here tonight
We have to find a way to penalize the criminals w/o punishing those who are responsible
gun owners. In a way, I can see their anger, I have been really pissed off about the possibility of the government snooping into my life when they really should be looking for Osama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. Have we, now?
Dems have been presenting these same policies for the last decade and the right wing zealots still wish to believe otherwise. Its a waste of time - nothing but GOP trolling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #84
87. Well, I am hoping that some will stay
and see that we are trying to effect change for the better, these are dark days indeed, every day
we slip farther away from the democracy my dad believed so much in. He was a gun owner but he
would not have been running into the voting booth to vote for Bush. I can just hear him now,
This Bush fella, the one that so keen on us fighting, did he ever go and do any fighting to see
what it was like. No, he was one of those stay at home boys. Then why does he want everybody
to go over there and fight for him. Cause, he's just that way, Dad, he's just like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. If this person
got a better idea of how to speak to a person that is a start. For example, storing weapons under lock and key when you are not home, goes a long way to prevent theft. No reasonable gun owner would fight this.

Not all dems present this. The party has not been clear that it has zero interest in gun control. The recent assault weapon ban vote plays into the hands of the single issue people.

This continues to isolate people over a law that has zero effect on the final product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. well, I like Wes Clark
and I have listened to podcasts on his website for election reform, they are very effective,
maybe a forum on gun control would be very effective. (hint, hint to the Clark folks)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. Its a wedge issue
It only hurts Dems to talk about it during an election season. If you're smart, you won't let GOP posters bait you with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #92
125. It is only that way
because it has not been dropped at the national level. Howard Dean is supposedly gun friendly per the nra. I remember hearing that, not that it matters.

The point is that the national level of the party can take a position of sensible laws and enforcement.

That is mostly what I hear these days.

Where I live I don't have to argue gun politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #84
109. Sadly, some of our high-profile Democrats have hurt us on this issue.
Kennedy made a speech in which he called the .30-.30 rifle a "cop-killer" that would go through body armor. The problem is that the .30.30 cartridge is a low power round that dates back to cowbody days. It is used in level action rifles. (Lever actions are the kind you see in Western movies where the shooter has to work a level for each shot.)

Almost all rifle bullets will penetrate most body armor. So in effect, Kennedy was calling for all rifles to be outlawed.

There are lots of other quotes and positions by other high-profile Democrats that get lots of attention, and cost us votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #109
115. That's why there's people like Amendment II Democrats
Check 'em out:

http://www.a2dems.net
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #84
138. Actually, no...
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 01:27 PM by benEzra
Dems have been presenting these same policies for the last decade

Actually, no. Banning protruding handgrips on civilian rifles, and all firearms over 10 rounds, was set as a high priority by the national party leadership from the early '90's through at least 2004. Until fairly recently, the national voice of the party on the gun issue was Dianne Feinstein et al, and a few DLC'ers even managed to get the protruding handgrip ban inserted into the party platform.

The party leadership pulled Senators Kerry and Edwards off the campaign trail on Super Tuesday in 2004 to vote for a bill to ban rifle handgrips that stick out. You tell me what that said about the national leadership's priorities in 2004.

Things are gradually changing NOW, but it took the loss of the House, the Senate, and two presidencies to wake up the national leadership on the issue. It's about time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. Agree
Part of this is backing it up with action. The other part is getting the message out that guns are not a party issue.

Dropping this issue and proving it is key.

Part of this is learning basic things about the technical language that surrounds firearms. Ie the difference in Machine gun(select fire rifle, sub machine gun), semi automatic, etc.

Silly laws chasing the 50bmg, a rifle shot by rich people, are used as a bat to beat up the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. yes, I think the real issue is crime not gun control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #60
100. Democrats should fight to do nothing at the federal level on gun-control
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 11:03 PM by w4rma
Dems should fight to keep the law as it is, neither supporting more or less gun control. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeeBGBz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
89. They think we want to take away their guns
I think I'd prefer to be well armed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #89
93. my neighbor carries a gun when he works
he works nights and he has to drive through dangerous neighborhoods, he feels safer with it,
I am not going to deny him the right to carry that gun, I realize he needs it on his job.
He works with vending machines and is worried about being robbed. Those who have legitimate
needs should have them, the thugs should not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #93
99. Dems agree, so what's the problem? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
98. Exactly.
The ways that Democrats can destroy whatever power we gain in November is to fight for more gun-control or fight for an amnesty-type bill for illegal immigrants. "Free" trade is also a loser.

Those are the 3 positions that will destroy any Democratic majorities, just like those same issues destroyed Democratic majorities in 1994 when the DLC was at the peak of their power and pushed this BS instead of looking out for regular Americans.

I really hope that the Democratic leadership has learned from their mistakes in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #98
101. I gues you haven't been keeping up
on Dem policy on the issue. Seems you missed out on the last 10 years or so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #101
110. Obviously better than you have. (nt)
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 11:51 PM by w4rma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
108. Anyone who cares about this must read Foxes in the Henhouse, Saunders/Jar-
ding.

It's not just guns. The Democrats have turned their backs on Bubba.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldSiouxWarrior Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
111. Focusing on "hunting type guns" is not enough.
The problem is that of the households that have guns, only 20% of them hunt. The rest have their guns for other reasons - mostly pistols for self-defense.

Notice how many states have liberalized their CCW laws to "shall-issue" type. Last time I looked it was around 35, and I think a couple more have been added since. Those states did that because of pressure from the people.

For that matter, Ann Richards vetoed a CCW bill for Texans, and was defeated in the next election. Her veto was a key issue in the election. She was defeated by the current occupant of the White House. So if she had not vetoed that bill, we might have had a different President.

My point is that people want to keep more than just hunting guns. They want to keep pistols too, and that's a lot of city folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JRob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
116. This issue diminishes our chances of winning across the board!!!
Regardless of what you think about the gun issue, unless the perception that "Dem's want to take the guns" is addressed we will continue to ride the political seesaw and recently we've been on our ass a lot.

If you want to change any part of the law, you'll need first to hold office.

Where I live this issue is the turning point for probably 50% of the people I know. These are people that would, more than likely vote blue otherwise. People who need to vote blue.

Yell, scream, foam at the month if you choose but unless we soften the rhetoric on this our pursuit of majorities is congress and the white house will be challenging vs. a landslide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #116
118. "I thought I was alone..."
That's what I often hear from pro-gun Democrats who stumble upon the Amendment II Democrats website. We may be small, but we're working on voters just like the ones you've been talking about.

Click here for Amendment II Democrats
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JRob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #118
120. Very cool... I never thought I was alone, but certainly a minority in
terms of voicing how critical this issue could be to our success in government.

I truly believe that circumventing NRA and the GOP framing of this issue will give Dem's an overwhelming advantage in upcoming elections and I've been saying this for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
117. Actually...it's threads like this...
...that point out the type of propaganda used by the right to win votes from the gunhuggers.

The only laws that seem to infringe on the 'rights' of gun owners is the homeland 'security' legislation.

Democrats don't want your guns. They want responsible gun ownership. If you add anything beyond this...you're adding to the propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. However, we do have to address Democrats who did want to take away guns
Dianne Feinstein and Pete Stark come to mind, for starters. This ain't propaganda - it's public record.

And I want Democratic victory in 2006 just as much as you do. That's why I'm trying to rally and organize pro-gun Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #117
133. So, you don't support bans on "assault weapons," then?
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 10:34 AM by benEzra
"Assault weapon" = any self-loading civilian rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out, any civilian shotgun that holds more than 5 shells, any civilian rifle or pistol that holds more than 6 or 10 rounds of ammunition, or any civilian firearm with too-modern styling.

Some Dems (and some repubs, too) DO most certainly want the guns my wife and I own. My wife's 15-round 9mm pistol, my Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, her collectible SKS, my SAR-1.

Dianne Feinstein wants outlaw nonhunting style firearms. Four out of five gun owners (including my wife and I) are nonhunters. See the problem?



Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meldroc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
121. Right on - the Democratic Party needs to take gun control off the platform
I would describe myself as pretty liberal - pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq-War, in favor of health-care reform, etc. but I have to disagree strongly with those who advocate gun control. Bush and his cronies are this >< close to turning America into a fascist state, so I'm in favor of the Second Amendment (as interpreted to mean individuals have a right to keep and bear arms) for the same reason Thomas Jefferson is in favor of gun rights - as a possible defense against government gone bad. That's right. I'll go ahead and say it. I own weapons not just for hunting, or protection against street criminals, but explicitly as a last-ditch violent defense against tyranny. I'll probably die in the attempt, but I figure I might as well have company.

As long as the capacity for evil exists in human beings, especially those with political power, I will never give up my guns for any reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
123. The Democratic Party Is Pro-Gun Enough As It Is

If some rural types aren't bright enough to grasp this rather obvious fact, we shouldn't be bending over backwards for them.
Particularly this time around, when guns aren't much of an issue....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #123
126. "Enough?"
With Rahm Emanuel and Dianne Feinstein still scheming to bring back a ban on semi-automatics, we've got problems reaching out to the heartland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #126
139. Yeah, That's What I Said: "Enough"

In case you haven't noticed, guns are a non-issue in this election cycle. The only group doing its very best to keep guns front and center are agenda-laden activists like yourself, and you'd be doing us all a huge favor if you just shut the hell up.

But you're not going to do that, are you? Oh, no---you and your fellow "Democrat" gun militants are going to keep bitching and whining about the party's rather moderate stance on guns to the bitter end. It's lots more fun for you to dig up an old quote or two from Democratic office holders who are responding to the wishes of their heavily urbanized constituents, inject some ever-reliable NRA paranoia into the mix, and stand back while people get excited and the party suffers.

In the end, you guys are never satisfied---no one the Democrats puts up for president is ever going to satisfy you. You shit-canned Gore, you shit-canned Kerry, and come 2008, the Gun Dungeon will light up with your non-stop ranting against whoever we nominate this time around. You might get a break if a Republican does something stupid with a gun; God knows, your relative silence over the Cheney quail hunt incident was deafening.

Thanks for nothing.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #139
145. And thanks to the Brady Campaign for helping keep Democrats out of office
Yeah, you read that right. I'm innocent of every charge you just threw at me, great bit of research you just did on my support of John Kerry back in 2004.

The Democratic Party as a whole has nothing to worry about from gun-rights activists like me. At least I speak about individual rights and balancing them with responsiblity to oneself and one's community. As for the Brady Campaign, they tend to think we can't even be trusted with water pistols. Whom do you want directing DNC policy - the authoritarians, or us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JRob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #123
131. "some" !? Try "Most" We talking enough to help change the complexion
of Washington. Besides isn't non-compromise a virtue of the GOP? We need to resist the urge to be as rabid about this issue as "some" right-to-lifers are about abortion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
141. Let em have their hunting rifles, but.....
We can't have those inbred, toothless, redneck morons running around with 50 cals and M-60's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #141
142. You know automatic weapons have been restricted since 1934, yes?
By the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act.

FWIW, most gun owners are neither hunters, nor "inbred, toothless, redneck morons." I'm married to a gun owner from Cambridge, Massachusetts who has a B.A. in English, writes poetry, and studies medieval and Renaissance history for fun.

I'm a gun owner, and I can tell you what physical quantity in general relativity is represented by the invariant length of a particle's momentum four-vector. My sister is a gun owner, and double majored in mathematics and engineering at NC State.

Between us, we don't own any hunting rifles, pickup trucks, camouflage clothing, or blaze orange vests, and have three full sets of teeth. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #142
143. I was describing the women:)................n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nmliberal Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
144. Our Democratic party is having a raffle for a 44 mag Henry Big Boy
We began our raffle during the County Fair last week. It gives us an opportunity to discuss the issue and dismiss the myths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentWar Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
146. I'm an AK47 owning Liberal
And make no bones about it. The smart Dem politicos running in November will carry a sensible gun position on their platforms if they are serious about winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. Welcome aboard! "Gun control is not an issue," my eye...
Anyone who wants to clinch the Democratic nomination in 2008 has got to get past us first.

Not that I'm immune to a little sweet-talking - I am human, after all. But Russ Feingold is looking like a winner to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC