Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anybody want to circulate a petition against HR45?

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 » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 04:53 PM
Original message
Anybody want to circulate a petition against HR45?
Here's the PDF:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h45ih.txt.pdf

The main thrust of this bill is that it will be illegal for you to own any handgun (even an old-fashioned revolver) unless you have a license from the Attorney General to do so. This also applies to most semi-automatic firearms.

This is, in essence, another form of ban on what the Bradys call "assault weapons."

If you want to gather signatures on an anti-HR45 petition for your newly-seated Democratic Congressman, PM me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Basically...
"It's what's good for Chicago..."

This thing has fail written all over it. I've already contacted my Representative. He's a solid "no" vote on this turkey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. If your Democratic neighbors feel the same way...
...let me know and I can send you a petition form, courtesy of Amendment II Democrats. All I need is your state, congressional district, and e-mail. That way, we can have a solid record of voters for your Congressman to peruse.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. idle curiosity

What party would he represent?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Democrat.
What Party does your Congressman represent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. gosh

Haven't quite caught on to that inclusive language thang yet, have you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. I've caught on quite well, thank you.
I know a thing or two about your kind, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. and hmm

The Democrat Party, was that?

Hmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rangersmith82 Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. What the Democratic party cannot support the rights of gun owners??
What are you getting at???

Are you saying any one that opposes gun control is a republican???

Our party is the leader in protecting citizens rights in the US.

The only time when this is questioned, is when it comes to the rights of gun owners.

I would think our party would be prepared to fight for and protect all rights which are guaranteed in the US Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. I'm having one of those JFK moments
"We choose to oppose harsh gun restrictions, not because it is easy, but because it is hard..."

It's still going to take a lot of work. Support for gun control is still in our platform, the incoming Cabinet, and in the White House itself. There are enough Democratic Senators on our side to make it a harder sell on Capitol Hill, but they need all the help they can get.

Want a petition form? If so, PM me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hooptie Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
31. Interesting
It is my understanding that a Congressional Representative is supposed to represent his or her constituents, not a political party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. That's how it is supposed to work
The term "partisan" was considered an insult in the early days of our nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. fascinating

It would occur to me that if a candidate felt that his/her constituents' interests were not represented by a particular political party, s/he wouldn't bother attaching that party's name to his/her candidacy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
39. The Black Panther Party? He still in that? Doesn't sound inclusive (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sounds wonderful to me.
It probably won't make it because of the power of the gunnuts. But, oh, I wish it could be enacted!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. self-delete
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 06:04 PM by derby378
It's all good... :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Care to share your reasoning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. too much to even dream of, isn't it?

The best of luck to you from north of our border ... where far too many of your unregulated handguns end up being used to facilitate crimes and intimidate our neighbourhoods ...

I'm sure there will be petitions from the side of reason and decency, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. The side of reason and decency...
I'm sure there will be petitions from the side of reason and decency, too.

Well of course, that's the side that started this request for petitions!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. You trust your local law enforcement that much, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
27. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
37. And to the GOP as well. Even failed gun-control bills are enough for them.
Do you back this kind of political dynamic, giving the GOP what they so desire? The image of the "Democrat Party" as a coven of gun-grabbers? You must. You keep pushing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xela Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. Sure it works...This legal nightmare...
...is doing wonders in Mexico.


Xela
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. Wouldn't Heller v. DC make this a non-starter?
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 07:26 PM by slackmaster
I'll fight it tooth and nail in any case.

Charging an annual FEE to keep my personal property? That's messed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rq4a Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
42. Heller's Handgun and DC
Don't under estimate anti-gun nuts and thier creativity to subvert the 2nd Amendment. Heller was supposed to get his handgun permit after the court case. What did the city of DC do? They simply reclassified his handgun with machineguns. Then the city smiled and said, 'seeeee we are obeying the law, we are only banning machineguns'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. Very low number bill - very good sign.
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 08:09 PM by pending
From what I understand, these are reserved for high priority bills.

This seems just like a reasonable common sense law, and something similiar already in place in many states already. This is the sort of thing that SHOULD be uniform nationwide.

Respectfully, I won't be joining you on the petition.

To see that its apparently a high priority is a very good sign of things to come from the new administration.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. low number bill=
early filing

the number just has to do with when it was filed in relation to other bills, H.R. 2 would be the second bill or resolution filed...number shows nothing about its priority (in fact its probably going to go no where because even if it did reach the senate- harry reid wouldnt dare let something like this get to the floor- he'd pay for it politically back in nevada)

and i might add that reasonable/common sense isnt the litmus test that a gun bill has to pass- its the second amendment. And there are plenty of proposals in that document which run afoul...ill go over a few

Banning people on the terror watch list from purchasing guns- well this is hard to pass through a second amendment test. the loss of a constitutional right without due process would fail any second amendment test

Safe storage of firearms- the supreme court held that the second amendment protects your right to an easily available firearm for self defense- they struck down safe storage laws as inhibiting this...this law would probably suffer the same fate

Assault weapon bans- just cause a weapon doesnt have a "sporting purpose" doesnt mean it can be banned- So called assault weapons are semi-automatic defense weapons which are commonly held by civilians for defensive purposes. The supreme court has held that you cannot ban commonly held weapons- even if they do not have a sporting purpose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Oh I understand that regarding sequencing
Edited on Tue Jan-13-09 09:45 PM by pending
Although I might be mixing up my knowledge of a particular state house whereby bills with higher priority would be introduced early, so that single and double digit bills were considered the priorities for that session.

I could imagine a scenario where the NRA pro-gun forces might get some traction on the assault weapon portion as a constitutional matter, but I suspect that in the end they would not be successful as the rifle class of weapon will still be widely available.

And if I may be cynical for a moment, the litmus test is hardly constitutionality. Congress has shown time and time again that it has no problem with passing laws that violate the constitution and then letting the courts sort it out. No - the litmus test will be whether Congress believes that this is what their voters want.

The fact of the matter is that Congress and the President rode in on a wave of change as dictated by the Democratic platform. And that platform includes common sense controls on these weapons.

I don't care for the watch list provisions. Or anything having to do with the watch list for that matter. Nonetheless, I think this bill is largely a very good thing.

I hope this gets passed and Obama signs it. Who knows, the life it saves may be your own.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. i'd rather take my chances
in regards to my own life than have this bill

"I could imagine a scenario where the NRA pro-gun forces might get some traction on the assault weapon portion as a constitutional matter, but I suspect that in the end they would not be successful as the rifle class of weapon will still be widely available."

this belief is flawed for a few reasons. First off the assault weapon ban being proposed essentially bans all clip fed semi-auto long guns- a huge class of rifles that are in in common possession. to put what you are saying in first amendment terms, its okay to ban Magazine publications because the majority of the printed press would still be allowed. It doesnt work that way. D.C. tried to do something similar to this by banning all semi-auto handguns stating that it constitutional because it allows ownership of revolvers. Well D.C. soon figured out that this wouldnt fly and they would probably lose in court so they repealed it.

"And if I may be cynical for a moment, the litmus test is hardly constitutionality. Congress has shown time and time again that it has no problem with passing laws that violate the constitution and then letting the courts sort it out. No - the litmus test will be whether Congress believes that this is what their voters want."

it is true that congress passes unconstitutional laws all the time- but laws interfering with the second amendment are in a different league. Laws like these are usually subject to extremely publicized and ferocious criticism- criticism that is really not seen in almost any other debate. Where many laws that sit on constitutionally flimsy grounds often don't get challenged (or if they do the cases are small or few and far between), cases that may run afoul to the second amendment will be attacked like wild dogs- wild dogs that are well payed, well organized, and never tire. These laws will be attacked by all angles.

secondly, ideology is all well and good but reality is whats left at the end of the day. The litmus test is not truly what the voters want but what scores political points for senators and congress people. Most of the time that correlates with what voters want but as a good statistician will tell you "correlation does not equal causation". This is easily seen within the confines of the gun debate. The truth is that the majority of americans support stricter gun restrictions than what is actually in place at the moment. But the key here is the word support. Support and want (in the political sense) are not interchangable. To want is to advocate, to support means you agree with the proposal- but that doesnt not necessarily mean you are going to openly advocate it. The fact is that only about 1-4% of americans think gun control should be a major issue. (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd082799e.html). So even if we assume that everyone in that 4% supports stricter gun control, there isnt much "want" for it. And since there isnt much "want" for it, it does not increase the political points for politicians. So to sum it up...the majority of americans really dont give a shit. Since that is the case, the remaining minority groups determine the outcome of political pressure for gun control. In that case, it is a well known fact that the open advocate gun rights minority is exponentially larger than the gun control minority (The NRA has a membership of over 4 million, while the Brady campaign- the largest single gun control organization- boasts less than 50,000) politicans in whole, stand more to lose than to gain from pushing gun control.

"The fact of the matter is that Congress and the President rode in on a wave of change as dictated by the Democratic platform. And that platform includes common sense controls on these weapons."
They rode on a wave of change in regards to the war in iraq, economy, and anti-bush sentiments...gun control played very little role in this. And lets not be naive, very few items on a presidents platform will ever be accomplished- and since that is the case an administration must pick and choose its battle, and gun control is not one of them

Also logistically speaking- there is very little chance that this bill will see floor time in the senate- harry reid is a senator from a very pro-gun state and at the end of the day he does not answer to the american people as a whole- but to the voters of the state of nevada. Tom daschle was in the position a time before and caved into the administrations push for gun control- it hurt him at the polls.

Lastly- i'd like to add that i believe you are mixing up a particular state house with congress. Bill filing times have never been shown to have a correlation with chances of being passed.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Highly doubt it would save any lives
People who support banning semiautomatic firearms tend to broadly fall into two groups, those who don't fully understand what the term means, and those who just don'tlike guns period and would ideally eliminate them altogether. Group one is often hard to work with because preconceived notions can be hard to shake, and the second group is just about impossible to work with because it is rare for someone in that group to volunteer their actual desires.



I have a strong feeling you belong to group one. I think with a demonstration on a range you would probably have some questions about what purpose this legislation would actually serve. saving lives ain't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. you mean similiar to about five states?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. Hello pending - Let me tell you something about what the number 45 means to gun owners
Edited on Wed Jan-14-09 10:13 AM by slackmaster
That happens to be the numeric part of a couple of handgun calibers that are popular among a broad spectrum of gun owners.

The .45 Colt is used in single-action revolvers like the Colt Single Action Army and Ruger Blackhawk, by "cowboy action" shooters and others who refer to themselves as traditionalists. (My Single Action Army is a clone made by EAA of Germany. It's a lot of fun to shoot.) In the past, when the original federal "assault weapons" ban was being debated, many of them were happy to sell owners of semiautomatics down the river. They were sure THEIR humble old-fashioned pistols would never be affected by any kind of effort to limit access to more modern weapons. I can remember going to gun shows and hearing vendors of Western-style guns and accessories blathering on about how the AR-15 owners were ruining it for everyone.



The .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) is used in the Model 1911 semiautomatic pistol and all of its flavors and derivatives. Surplus military pistols were sold to the public in large numbers for as little as $15 from the end of World War II (that would be 1945) into the 1960s. Although the military abandoned it as a general issue sidearm in the late '80s, the 1911 remains one of the most popular handguns and serves as the platform for serious competition guns in several disciplines. They're rugged, reliable, powerful, capable of fine accuracy, and can be configured in many useful ways.



When someone refers to a "45" in casual conversation, it almost always refers to a 1911 pattern pistol. Tens of millions of people own them. As with the single-action pistol crowd, there is a sub-population of 1911 owners who were happy to throw owners of "assault-style" firearms under the bus when the original AW ban was being discussed in Congress.

The original AW ban barely passed in 1994 - It finally won by a single vote after tremendous arm-twisting on Republicans by other Republicans, who (along with loss of a Democratic majority) all paid dearly for it in the election later that year. That was also the year the World Wide Web started. If HR45 shows any signs of life, all those cowboys and 1911 owners who thought they were safe in 1994 are going to be reminded of their past misjudgment, and they're not going to be at all happy with any politician who supports forcing them to get a license for things they've owned and enjoyed using for decades. It might even wake up some of the other "traditionalists" who use bolt-action rifles for hunting, and were silent in 1994.

45 caliber handguns are rarely used in crime, and they're popular for self-defense. I regard my Springfield Armory 1911 as the very last handgun I'd sell if I had to liquidate my gun collection for cash. It's the one I take when I go camping, and the one I load up when the police report that there is a dangerous fugitive in the area. Messing with peoples' 45s is a really good way to piss them off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
18. There was a time when Illinois gun control advocates knew to keep their gun control local


No thank you Bobby Rush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
38. Yeah, but Rush thinks it's time to spread his righteous stink (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-13-09 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
19. I absolutely do
What a way to lose all the seats we have gained over the last two elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
25. I could never comply
This section:

(6) a certification by the applicant that the ap2
plicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant
3 safely stored and out of the possession of persons
4 who have not attained 18 years of age;


I have a loaded gun in every gun in my house. They're going to stay right where they're at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-14-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. This is a complete non-starter with my home state.
We have state laws allowing sub-18 year olds access to firearms, if supervised by an adult. This has no such provision. So it would seem to run afoul of the 10th Amendment, yes?


I still support some sort of registration scheme, and it should be crafted by gun owners, not 'ban' advocates. If we don't do it, they will eventually, and it's going to have all kinds of shitty provisions that we will hate. Seems like the responsible thing to do.

Keeping and using is protected by various state constitutions, and the 2nd, but I see no reason to assume anonymous ownership or transfer is protected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rangersmith82 Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Damn...
Edited on Thu Jan-15-09 09:52 AM by rangersmith82
I guess we are now the gun grabbing party....how many more rights are we going to infringe on in the name of safety????

We are going to sacrifice control of the House and Senate over this bullshit???

Isn't there more important things to worry about??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Were you responding to someone else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusmcj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-09 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
34. Bobba Rush: Blago's OKgo cause there's no blacks in the Senate
please... our majority can disappear in 2 years. Let's not, and not say we did neither. Morons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Floyd_Droid Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-09 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
35. The most retarded thing I've heard yet!
This is the most retarded thing I have read yet, I'm flabergasted by the ignorance you speak up and that of anyone lame enough to sign such crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-03-09 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Uh...
Was that directed at the OP or at HR45 itself? Please clarify.

And welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
40. Interesting factoid about the representative who introduced HR45...
Rush introduced H.R.45, the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 on January 6th, 2009. This bill, if signed into law would require all owners of hand guns and semiautomatic firearms to register for a federal firearms license. All sales of the subject firearms would have to go through a licensed dealer. The bill would also make it a criminal act not to register as an owner of a firearm. H.R. 45 does not have any co-sponsors and has been referred to the judiciary committee. <11>

**********snip**********


In 1969, Bobby Rush served six months in prison for illegal possession of firearms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Rush

While this was a long time ago, and Bobby Rush has done a lot of good things since, it is ironic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallguyaz Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
43. I would like to help with petition
Hi, I couldn't PM you as I am new, but I would like to help. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
umccoyw Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
44. I dont think thats right
I dont think that is right or even constitutional its nice to see people sticking up for what is right.
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 Sun May 31st 2020, 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns 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