Why hasn't Dean taken a position on trigger locks?

[Bombtrack]

He doesn't even mention it on his website. There's a straight-shooter for you.

[JVS]

1. What is Kerry's position?

please provide a link

[Bombtrack]

2. he favors them

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/

...and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.

Kerry isn't my candidate anyway

[w4rma]

8. Kerry is going to get the heck beaten out of him on guns. (n/t)

[EXE619K]

3. Trigger Locks, Schmigger Locks!

I have to be honest here...trigger locks are an idiotic issue that only further the demise of the Democratic party.

Responsible gun owners can do many things besides trigger locks to ensure the safety of guns in regards to accidental discharges.

I'm a gun owner myself and I take out the firing pin when my gun is not in use. This is much safer than a trigger lock, which can be easily broken by a simple screw driver.

The Anti-gun lobbies should really think twice about this issue.

The current NRA is a fucked up organization. The NRA and the Anti-gun lobbies should pull their heads out of...you know what regarding this issue.

Dean is "dead on" about this....like with many other issues.

But, that's just my opinion.

on edit: shitty grammar

[alwynsw]

4. Agreed. For safety I use safes.

Yes, real live safes for all my firearms. 1,200 pound steel safes. It gets me a break on my insurance as well. No. They are not required where I live.

Trigger locks are a hot button issue. The locks themselves are next to useless. Any candidate who supports their use needs to learn a bit more about them.

[joshcryer]

5. Check out GunFAQs...

https://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf

Good info.

[Bombtrack]

13. He's dead on about what? avoiding taking a position?

Dean is a coward and a liar

[slackmaster]

6. If he hasn't said anything about it then assume DNC platform position

i.e. "We support mandatory trigger locks", a tabula rasa that makes about as much sense as saying "We support mandatory child-safety seats."

[NashVegas]

7. Trigger Locks Are No Substitute

for teaching kids about gun safety..

[alwynsw]

12. Best thing I've read on the issue. Thanks.

Until our troops stop doing idiotic things like pointing guns into the crowd with their fingers on the trigger while trying to get more control legislation passed, it will only add credence to the arguments that proclaim that Dems have no clue.

Personally, I'm RKBA all the way, but the party as a whole needs to learn better than to commit such errors when pushing any agenda. It pretty much nullifies your argument if you perform unsafe acts while trying to promote safety.

I took this photo from this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=35580
For those who aren't familiar with her face, this is Diane Feinstein.

[Jim Sagle]

9. Because nobody gives a fuck?

[NashVegas]

10. I Wouldn't Say That, Exactly

But there are more important issues at hand.

[mzmolly]

11. Why hasn't Kerry taken a position on the war?

Theres a straight shooter for ya...

[arewethereyet]

14. because he's pro gun. thats the best thing he has going for him.

be for responsible gun ownership and the rest takes care of itself.

[ldoolin]

15. Um, because it's a "so what?", a non-issue, a pathetic distraction?

Look, we have the Bush regime stomping all over civil rights, dismantling the Great Society, New Deal, and Bill of Rights, and a slaughter going on in the Middle East (all with Kerry's assistance I might add), and you want me to get all excited about...

trigger locks?

Heh.

Let's just bring up more silly peripheral issues while we're at it. We have a huge problem with steroid use among athletes (Bush said so!!), where's Dean's platform plank on steroids? Where's Dean's platform plank on mandatory bicycle helmet laws? Where's his platform plank on whatever imagined threat to "the children" people can come up with?

Get real. I want a candidate who addresses real life and death issues, like the Patriot Act and the Iraq war.

[PVnRT]

18. Of course, the GOP

won't be bringing up such "silly non-issues" will they? They would never do such a thing.

Furthermore, I think it is condescending and downright rude to sit there and demand that everyone take up your principal causes as theirs as well. If a candidate runs only on Iraq and PATRIOT, they simply will not win. There are more things that Americans worry about than just those two issues.

Speaking of PATRIOT and Iraq, how did Kerry and Edwards vote on those again?

[ldoolin]

20. Huh?

won't be bringing up such "silly non-issues" will they? They would never do such a thing.

They seem to have brought up the steroid issue. Bush included it in his speech the other evening.

Furthermore, I think it is condescending and downright rude to sit there and demand that everyone take up your principal causes as theirs as well.

I agree, which is why it has been condescending and rude for the gun-control lobby and similar groups to think they have some kind of entitlement to hegemony over the Democratic Party. They don't speak for most working class people or union members, and they certainly do not speak for me.

Speaking of PATRIOT and Iraq, how did Kerry and Edwards vote on those again?

I think you misread the sarcasm in my post. What makes you think I'm a fan of Kerry and Edwards?

[freetempe]

16. Dean is for State's Rights when it comes to guns.

He's said it many, many times. That the laws of New York and California should be different than laws in Wyoming and West Virginia.

Oh and his stance on guns is the only thing that will give Dems a fighting chance in the South and West. Kerry will get torn apart by the NRA, GOP and Bush.

[Eloriel]

28. I wouldn't call it States' Rights --

That's a term that has an association with desegregation, racism, etc. Plus, Dean doesn't argue it's the RIGHT of States (under the Constitution) to make those decisions, but rather it's more pragmatic for states to decide what sort of additional legislation, if any, they need. The needs in VT and MT are likely to be different than CA and NY and so forth.

Not States' Rights at all.

[Cuban_Liberal]

17. Who freakin' CARES?

he hasn't taken a position on corn-borers either, and that's a much bigger issue where I live. :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Because he is more concerned about NRA votes than children's lives.

To put it in the most partisan terms possible, lol.

[ldoolin]

21. Typical

"For the children".

:eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Well that is what child safety locks are about, saving kid's lives.

[ldoolin]

26. Actually,

I'm not all that unfavorable toward laws requiring handguns to be sold with trigger locks, and laws requiring parents to keep guns stored out of childrens' access. Those are consumer product safety issues, not civil liberties issues.

But I'd be a lot more favorable toward those things if they weren't so heavily promoted by the same people who want to add more people to the federal prohibited possessor lists, put mental health records in the federal Brady background check computers, enact national firearms licensing and registration, and ultimately ban private possession of firearms. Those are civil liberties issues, not consumer product safety issues. As it stands right now, as long as trigger locks look like a wedge issue promoted by the gun-control groups who have bigger goals in mind, they won't get my support.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Well it sounds like you agree with Kerry, in that case.

Since you have pretty well stated his position.

[ldoolin]

29. But re: Kerry

Kerry's position is he "doesn't want to be the candidate of the NRA."

Well, I don't care much for the NRA either becuase the NRA opposes gun rights for 35% of African-Americans, supports tough on crime policies and truth-in-sentencing laws, favors the death penalty, and wants tougher enforcement of the existing federal gun laws.

But I rather doubt that the reasons I don't like the NRA are the same reasons Kerry doesn't like the NRA.

[arewethereyet]

33. whats wrong with tougher enforcement of existing gun laws ?

not sure how that can be a bad thing.

[ldoolin]

35. Because

Because the existing gun laws bar 35% of African-Americans from ever again legally owning a firearm.

Because the existing gun laws mandate a 5 year sentence in federal prison for somebody prohibited from owning a firearm found in possession of one (for example, because they have a felony conviction from 35 years ago for sodomy, marijuana possession, or reckless driving.)

Because the existing gun laws mandate a 5 year sentence in federal prison for somebody who is found simultaneously in possession of a firearm (even if legal), and any illegal drug. For example, a marijuana joint is found in your home in Oregon or Alaska: Cite and release offense, the equivalent of a traffic ticket. A marijuana joint is found in your home, and you also are a gun owner? 5 years in the federal pen under federal law. Doesn't matter that the gun is completely legal.

Because the existing gun laws include "dishonorably discharged" from the armed forces as something that would prohibit one from owning a firearm. For example, because the person is lesbian or gay, or was court martialed during the Vietnam war for listening to Malcolm X tapes in the barracks or attending a peace demonstration off base (both actually happened).

Because the existing gun laws mandate a 5 year minimum sentence in federal prison if you accidentally take a firearm onto federal property - for example, you have a concealed carry permit and you accidentally wander into the post office and forget to leave your gun in the car.

Because the existing federal gun laws bar anyone with a conviction for *any* offense, not just a felony, which had a potential sentence of a year or more, from ever again owning a firearm. This includes such offenses as minor traffic offenses in Pennsylvania prior to the 1970s - all of which carried a potential sentence of three years. Didn't pay your parking tickets in PA back in the 1960s? No gun.

Because...

That's why.

[arewethereyet]

36. let me see if I've got this straight

I guess point one involves prior criminal activity. No, we don't want criminals barred from having weapons.

And it looks like you would have it be OK for people under the influence to have weapons in their possession. I'm against the war on drugs but only if users are required to retain personal responsibility.

If you were not considered fit to carry a weaspon by the Army, I'll give the Army the benefit of the doubt. Everyone knows the rules going in.

Accidents are not acceptable where weapons are concerned. Ever.

I'd have to say taht minor traffic offenses that can fetch a year in prison are not minor at all.

So far I see no problems.

[ldoolin]

37. Okay, let's see if I've got this straight...

1. You don't think that only violent crimes should bar one from owning a firearm, and otherwise that right should be restored once the sentence is completed? Do you also support revoking voting rights for life?

2. Soo...you don't think that it's a bit hypocritical for marijuana to carry this penalty but not alcohol?

3. Soo...you don't think gays and lesbians should be allowed in the military? You don't think military personnel should have the right to participate in an off-base demonstration?

4. "Ever". Soo...you don't think a distinction should be drawn between somebody accidentally walking into a post office with a concealed handgun when they intended no harm, and an accident that results in injury or death?

5. You didn't read my post then. Pennsylvania law used to have *all* traffic offenses carry a potential 3 year sentence if they were tried in court. Minor or not. In any case, am I to believe that you think that an offense like failure to pay traffic tickets, or drag racing, especially one that was committed 30 or more years ago, should be grounds for lifetime ban on owning a firearm? And so what if a traffic offense is "major", you seriously think that a traffic offense should mean no gun, ever?

I see a lot of problems here.

[arewethereyet]

41. problems or opportunities

Felonies of any kind should have consequences, sufferage is a good one. Without consequences there is no incentive to stay law abiding. Given the recurrance of arrest among ex-felons, its the right thing to do.

As I said, I'm against the war on drugs, they should all be legalized immediately. At that time you seperate them from any other legislation that they are tied to.

Homesexuals can join the army, of course. They'll just have to follow the rules once they do. Don't like the rules ? Change them. Till then, follow them. Demonstrations ? Sure, go if you want but don't deny that it had no bearing on your performance on the job.

If you area not responsible enough to know where you can take your weapon and where you can't, you shouldn't have that conceal carry permit in the first place. No exceptions. Rights imply obligations.

As regards any law, if you don't like it, change it.

The opportunity is to fix whats broken, not whine about it.

[arewethereyet]

24. enforcing penalties on irresponsible parents will help more

How many such parents serve hard time for these sorts of crimes ?

Where does the responsibility lie ?

If a parent is irresponsible enough to leave a gun where a child can find it, and irresponsible enough to fail to educate those children do you really think they will be responsible enough to use the trigger locks and see that the keys are not findable ?

If a parent believed that he would see serious prison time for failures to protect his weapon form misuse wouldn't that help the problem ?

All I see is crying parents bemoaning the fact that there was nothing they could have done to stop the tragedy, I never see them sitting in prison.

Fix the disease, don't treat the symptoms.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Are you saying you think lives wouldn't be saved

if child safety locks were required with handgun purchases?

[arewethereyet]

30. thats correct, I don't believe it would help

Irresponsible buyers will just moan about the extra cost of the weapon and leave them in the box.

Responsible buyers already take appropriate actions to make these tragedies not happen.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. SOME lives would be saved.

More people would have child safety locks, therefore more people would use them, and some lives would be saved. I think it's worth the small price of these locks. I think mine cost 8 bucks.

[arewethereyet]

42. but you make my point

you managed to find and obtain a trigger lock for your weapon. Good, a sign of a responsible gun owner ! Every other gun owner has also had that same opportunity. Some bought, some didn't. Some of those who didn't are not exposed to children, others have safes or some other means to secure their weapons.

Others just leave them out where they can be found. Those people do not buy trigger locks, would not use them if you gave them ones for free and are at risk for losing children.

Your assumpmtion that they would be used is very debatable.

[RetroLounge]

22. Who gives a fuck?

I prefer jobs, healthcare and education.

DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN
DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN

[creativelcro]

31. What's KERRY position on SHOELACES ?

Should they always be tied ?

[Hoppin_Mad]

34. We KNOW his position on Botox - "never heard of it" ! ;-)

[IndianaGreen]

32. I am against trigger locks

What's your point?

[DaisyUCSB]

39. Well because Dean isn't a legislator, he gets away with avoiding issues

because he doesn't have to give a yay or nay, I think that's unfair.

[quaker bill]

40. But he has

He has said that he supports the right of any state to regulate guns however the voters there wish to.