Message to My Fellow Proud "Liberals" on DU: Hypocrisy Check!!!

[Sparkly]

"Don't give an inch!"
"We have to stand for something!"
"No compromise!"
"We cannot move right on any issues!"

Are you among those who SAY you agree? I do -- I can't think of a single issue where the Democratic party needs to "move right;" if anything, I believe we have room to move left on some issues. I believe Republicans have won recent elections in spite of their policy positions on issues, not because of them.

If you too agree and pride yourself on being left and standing firm on left/Democratic positions -- refusing to budge whether to appeal to other voters or because you think the party is wrong and should move closer to the rightwing's position -- then I ask you to be honest with yourselves as to whether this applies to EVERY issue, and how strong your stance really is.

If people breathe a hint of compromise on most issues, you respond with outrage -- and rightly so!! Yet on one issue, there is a strong contingent on DU that believes we should compromise and move toward the rightwing position, and few respond in defense of the left. Where are the Kucinich supporters? Where are the Greens? Where are the proud liberals and lefties? Where are the multitudes who will flame people into ashes on other issues? Where are the people who jump in and say "Amen" to threads urging us not to compromise or move rightward?

Here is a thread urging us to compromise and move right -- it's got about 500 posts, and very few of your names are there.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1400320

What I see on that thread does not jibe with what I see claimed on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2791220#2791936

Is it only worth claiming you take a stand, but not worth debating or defending your views?
Is it only worth debating or defending your views on some issues, but not others?
Does 'moving right' only matter on some things, but on others we 'stand our ground' weakly at best?

With all due respect, I suggest you either stop claiming you stand firm on the left, or go ahead and stand firm on the left!! There's nothing wrong with either stance. It's only hypocrisy that I can't stand.

[knowbody0]

1. no doubt

how bout we just base our platform on the literal translation of the constitution as though our lives depended upon it?

[Sparkly]

3. There's only ONE "literal translation?"

It's undebatable, and only one translation is accepted by all?

Here we go...

[kimchi]

2. I'm a proud Kucinich supporter, and as left as they come.

I think the "center" has moved right. I'm standing up for gun laws, abortion rights, a living wage, and marijuana legalization.

I can understand why those who like to hunt or collect guns would suggest embracing gun rights, so I don't think there is any hypocrisy there. I disagree vehemently, but I understand where they are coming from, I think.

[Sparkly]

4. "Gun rights" and "gun laws" are not mutually exclusive

and I don't understand why this one issue is so wishy-washy among the left.

Kucinich's position on this is admirably clear.

[kimchi]

5. I totally agree.

Which is why I don't understand of what hypocrisy you speak. 'Course I didn't take the time to read the whole thread, either. With which part did you have a problem?

[Sparkly]

9. The problem

The problem is that a hundred people, within minutes, will claim they stand firm on the left/liberal/Democratic position; and hundreds will vehemently attack people who challenge the left/liberal/Democratic position on issues like choice, gay rights, or religious freedom. (All rightly so.)

Yet there's a strong, vocal group on DU urging a move to the right on guns, and very few dare to speak up when that's the topic.

There's a disconnect there.

[DoNotRefill]

12. Actually, you'll find....

that there are lots of Democrats who feel that we've allowed ourselves to come down on the wrong side of a civil rights issue. This FAR predates Kerry's defeat, and is why so many of us supported Dean so vehemently.

Gun control has ALWAYS been a losing issue for us. It's driven a HUGE wedge between the party and a very large formerly core constituency, namely blue-collar working folks.

[Sparkly]

16. If that's your stance, fine.

I'm repeating myself to you, because you're still arguing the issue. This is not about the issue -- there are other threads for that. This is about challenging those who claim they support the left/liberal/Democratic party position yet make an exception.

I don't know if you're among them or not. If so, I'm suggesting you stop claiming you won't "move right" on any issue, because indeed that is what you propose. If not, then I wasn't addressing you to begin with.

[DoNotRefill]

31. What issue can possibly be MORE Democratic.....

than "Power to the People"?

We're a "pro-choice" party. Gun control is anti-choice.

[Sparkly]

38. Fine, you're entitled to that opinion.

Once again, that's not what this thread is about.

And once again, hundreds of people who claim they support people like Kucinich, Greens, and other liberals are silent on this thread.

[sendero]

73. People who are lockstep...

... with any ideology are morons IMHO, whether they be on the left or on the right. If you have brain, use it.

I'm a cafeteria Democrat. One most issues, I'm with the party position, on others (guns for example) I am not.

I feel like a "liberal", but I'm clearly not on board with the liberal dogma on every issue. And that is as it should be.

[MrBenchley]

112. By the way, sparkly

You'll notice the not very muted expressed desire our trigger-happy friends have to plug their fellow Americans and get away with it. Evidently if we cannot convince voters we are supposed to enforce our will with guns.

And you will notice all of these gun fetishists all want to blame people who supported the Demcoratic ticket enthusiastically for the loss, but don't have even a cross word to say against the RKBA crowd, which enthusiastically passed along lies and slander about our candidates publicly every day throughout the campaign and spent millions in dishonest right wing propaganda to support the Republicans.

[DoNotRefill]

6. Gun control is fascistic....

We're supposed to be the party of Civil Liberties. How gun control became associated with Democrats I don't know, but it shouldn't have been. And in case you didn't realize it, both JFK and Jimmy Carter were/are "gun nuts".

Gun control is the antithesis of "Power to the People". In reality, gun control advocates are advocating "Power to the State at the expense of the People."

[Sparkly]

10. And if that's your stance, fine

You believe in moving toward the rightwing's stance on that position. I'm not debating that here. My comments are directed to those who claim they will not move to the right on any issue.

[DireStrike]

14. I believe he's claiming that it's a right wing position

And wondering how dems got suckered into supporting it.

Are you angry with the semantics or the actual movement? That the people saying "don't move right" doesn't mean that moving right might not always mean "moving right?" Or that we must hold onto the exact positions we have now? I'm not sure exactly which point youre trying to make.

[DoNotRefill]

20. gun CONTROL is a right wing position....

in keeping with the concentration of power amongst a few top people, at the expense of the masses.

Power flows from the barrel of a gun. Those who would subjugate us MUST disarm us first, because as long as we have the means of effective resistance at our disposal, they CANNOT win.

[Sparkly]

27. You look at the platforms of the two parties over recent decades

and look at the stances of our candidates as individuals. There's a reason the NRA supports Republicans.

No, gun control is NOT a 'right wing position,' no matter how you rationalize that it should be, or that the rightwing position ought to be the leftwing position.

[DoNotRefill]

34. I'd suggest you look at the party platforms again....

including the Democratc STATE platforms. Almost all of them support the Second Amendment.

On edit: Would you care to compare and contrast Kerry's stated position on gun control and Bush's stated position on gun control? Frankly, they're indistinguishable.

[Sparkly]

60. "Almost all of them support the Second Amendment."

That's a slanted way to put it. I don't see ANY Democrats, state or otherwise, who do not "support the second amendment!"

As for Kerry and Bush* being indistinguishable on gun control in their *stated* positions:
- When Bush* claimed that he supports the assault weapons ban and closing background check loopholes, did he lose voters? If not, why not? Why did he say this?
- On other issues where there's similarity, Democrats are accused of being "Rethug lite." If people make an exception for this issue and not others, they can't claim to be consistent in their "we won't budge" stance.
- Somebody should have notified the NRA and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that the candidates were "indistinguishable" on guns, since the former endorsed Bush* and the latter endorsed Kerry. Is there any reason for those endorsements?

[DoNotRefill]

62. Is there a reason for the endorsements? Yup...

Both sides LIED as to their true position. It's called "covering all the bases".

BTW, you DID know that the Brady Campaign came out AGAINST Dean in the primaries, right?

You DO know what party James Brady (Reagan's Press Secretary) and Sarah Brady have been affiliated with in the past, right? Ever hear of a "False Flag" operation? Can you name a SINGLE other organization that has done more damage to Democrats over the past 20 years?

[Sparkly]

63. The NRA and Brady Campaign couldn't see the truth?

How did these lies convince them, but not you?

As for organizations that have done "damage" to Democrats, there are some on DU who think NARAL has done damage, and we should abandon or modify choice as an issue. Others think our association with gay rights have done damage; others think the party's stance on affirmative action should be changed and that the NAACP has damaged us; others think PETA damages the party, etc. etc... If you think the party should change on the issue of gun control, you're entitled to that opinion. But don't pretend it's materially different from these other "let's move right" proposals, and don't pretend Democrats haven't historically stood for gun control one minute and then claim their stand on gun control has hurt the party the next.

Again, this thread isn't about arguing whether or not the party should move rightward on gun control; it's about claims that on NO issue will we move when this is an unspoken exception.

[DoNotRefill]

64. Here's the disconnect...

where I am, gun control has NEVER been seen as a Democratic value. Why? Probably because so many rank and file Democrats are blue-collar working folks who believe that the Second Amendment does indeed convey an individual right to own guns. Pro-gun Democrats routinely win elections here. Anti-gun Democrats don't. And pro-gun Democrats who become anti-gun Democrats while in office are quickly shown the door. This has been going on for as long as gun control has been an issue.

On a national level, our party's position on this has been hijacked by a small group of anti-gun activists, many of whom are or were once Republicans.

I don't see the National party's shying away from the political third rail that gun control is as being a move to the right, I see it as a return to a core Democratic value....that civil liberties should be expanded, not curtailed. Curtailing civil liberties is the Republican's game.

[Sparkly]

66. Democrats have and DO support gun control more than Republicans

"Seen as a Democratic value" by you or not, Democrats have and are far more in favor of gun control than are Republicans. I can't believe there's any question about this.

"An individual right to own guns" is not what we're discussing. This isn't about a gun BAN.

As for our party's position being "hijacked," I can't remember when Democrats were against regulations related to public safety in this or any other regard. From OSHA workplace regulations to the EPA and emissions standards to food and drug safety standards to automobile regulations -- Democrats LIKE regulations for public safety. It's not considered "curtailing civil liberties" but rather enhancing our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If there was a time when this was different, some may and some may not see reason to go backward. (We used to be "Dixiecrats," too.) Opinions on that are a different debate for a different thread. Again, what I'm talking about is the hypocrisy of people saying "We will not move right on anything!" and then saying "Well, we'll move right on that because it's different." One way or the other!

I don't care what the excuses for "it's different" may be. Someone else might argue that abortion is "different" or gay rights is "different" or affirmative action is "different." Either one espouses moving to the right on some issue(s) or one does not, period.

As for the contention that it's "different" because Democrats are NOT a party that stands for gun control, I don't buy that for a second. I think this breakdown is pretty accurate:

# Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.
# Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.
# Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.
# Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.
# Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.

http://www.issues2000.org/Background_Gun_Control.htm

[DoNotRefill]

72. You say:

"From OSHA workplace regulations to the EPA and emissions standards to food and drug safety standards to automobile regulations -- Democrats LIKE regulations for public safety. It's not considered "curtailing civil liberties" but rather enhancing our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Those same food and drug safety standards are the reason why we can't get cheap drugs from Canada. Strange, that, I thought that Democrats SUPPORTED allowing cheap drug imports. And if you disarm people, leaving them at the mercy of people who would attack them, you've taken away their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and given contrrol over it to the criminals who prey upon them. That's not very Democratic, is it?

Being a Democrat, in my book, isn't a license to authoritarianism. your opinion may vary.

[Sparkly]

74. Good grief

Let's not sidetrack this to a discussion of why we can't reimport drugs from Canada. Democrats do indeed support reimportation.

"And if you disarm people" Again, I am NOT talking about a gun ban!!

[DoNotRefill]

75. there's a difference between us....

I want to do things that help people, but WITHOUT infringing on their constitutional rights. I suggest you look up the word "infringe" in a legal dictionary.

You keep saying that you're not talking about a gun ban. That's good. But you ARE talking about placing infringements (again, look up the legal definition of "infringe" or "infringement" in Black's) on the right to keep and bear arms. THAT in and of itself is unconstitutional.

You're right, Democrats DO generally support drug imports from Canada. Given your previous definition of what a Democrat is above, I don't see how you can reconcile the fact that Democrats support offshore drug imports with your definition of what Democrats support.

[Sparkly]

76. This is all beside the point

It's not the point, but I don't believe laws against slander and libel are "infringements" of free speech, nor that laws against theft are "infringements" of the right to own property.

But again, I don't want to argue about gun control itself here; I'm arguing that people should be honest about whether they truly do or do not stand firmly on left/liberal/Democratic positions, and not claim they do when they want to move right on this one -- whether it's because they think the position is wrong, or whether it's because they think it'd garner votes to compromise.

You're trying to get out of it by arguing that gun control is not a Democratic position. (Tell it to the NRA.)

[DoNotRefill]

78. Some laws are not infringements on rights.

In your example, slander and libel laws are not infringements upon the first Amendment, just as fraud isn't protected. These are areas of bad CONDUCT. With the Second Amendment, firearm use can indeed be regulated without infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. So it's quite acceptable to make, for example, shooting up schoolbuses full of nuns illegal. They can pass laws saying "It's illegal to shoot your neighbor's dog". Again, that's conduct, and isn't an infringement upon a right, because the Second Amendment doesn't say "the right to shoot up busloads of nuns or your neighbor's dog shall not be infringed." now if you pass a law that infringes POSSESSION of guns because somebody might misuse guns, THAT is an infringement, just as prior restraint in publishing is an infringement upon the first amendment.

[Sparkly]

79. AGAIN, that's all beside the point of this thread

As I've said to you repeatedly.

[DoNotRefill]

83. What's the point of this thread again?

Oh, yeah, I remember, it's to accuse Democrats of being hypocrites by distorting the facts and claiming that what a small, vocal minority wants applies to ALL Democrats.

[Sparkly]

85. Nonsense

It's to say people should be honest. Either you DO want to move closer to the Republican position on this issue, or you don't. Apparently, you do.

[DoNotRefill]

88. I'd rather stick....

with Democrat's ORIGINAL position, which was that gun control is bad.

[MrBenchley]

92. Speaking of that...

"what a small, vocal minority wants applies to ALL Democrats"
Geeze, refill, you can count the "gun rights" democrats on the fingers of one hand...and the thumb is Zell "Let's Have a Duel" Miller.

[countryjake]

109. Wish in one hand & lose office in the other!

As a solid member of the working class & a heritage of once-Democratic voting ancestors, I'd like to say that the use of "left" in this thread is misleading. I know of no self-respecting, progressive leftie who would ever vote for a candidate who stumps for restricting our right to defense against tyranny in this country. You may be able to count Democrats who support the right to keep & bear arms on one hand, but there are still thousands upon thousands of true liberal thinkers who are registered non-voters, patiently waiting for the day that Democrats go "oops" & realize the folly of their push for disarming citizens of this nation.

I would use the analogy of the similar disarming of Ancient Americans during the late 19th century. "Turn in your weapons now to bring an end to violence against your people!" Unfortunately, once these Natives were systematically mowed down & put into their proper places in this capitalist society, praying for peace to a white man's god, it was too late to defend their nation.

If you think continuing to cave to the system that has become this Democracy is represented by NOT enforcing gun control, you need to do a bit of historical study on all of the patriotic hypocrites who fought to defend their countries against a murderous, war mongering, conservative "right wing"! It is deluded to believe that "left" means gun control & until your children lie shot dead in your street, at your feet, you may not realize the true meaning of liberal!

[MrBenchley]

111. That IS hilarious....

"there are still thousands upon thousands of true liberal thinkers who are registered non-voters, patiently waiting for the day that Democrats go "oops" "
So wait a minute...there are thousands upon thousands of people who didn't care enough to vote against or weren't bothered at all by an unjust war, the outsourcing of jobs, open bigotry, pollution, and massive corruption who ALSO oppose the Democrats position on gun control and we're supposed to pretend those people are liberal? That IS a big fucking laugh.

"all of the patriotic hypocrites who fought to defend their countries against a murderous, war mongering, conservative "right wing"!"
Like who? Buford Furrow?

[countryjake]

119. Please tell me...

...exactly how voting for a Democratic candidate would have solved any of those problems you so gleefully listed? Were you even alive during the Clinton administration? Tell me, how did that Democrat get away with threatening & bombing the hell out of Iraq?

If Democrats are so "against an unjust war" why wasn't there any outcry way back when all those sanctions were being enforced & all of those innocent Iraqis were dying? It's so convenient for you to huff & puff about just wars, when another jackass is pushing the buttons, eh? I suggest you ask the "liberals" of Afghanistan or maybe Sudan or Bosnia if they feel safer when a Democrat controls the bombs of the USA.

Anyone who has tried to hold a job for the past forty yrs. knows that runaway shops are the reality in this country...no matter which party, those in control go where the profit is & screw any & all employees...that's what "fair trade" means to working people.

Now that it has finally crept up the scale to white collar, tech jobs, we conveniently have been given a new name for it, since the petit bougeouis could never really relate to the term "shop". Manufacturing in this country began to "run" thirty yrs. ago & working people knew it & cared...they were then given the same catchwords that Kerry uses now...education & technology...except most were already struggling to just live, let alone go to college or send their kids for any "higher" education. Your derisive terms for the uneducated masses does nothing to garner unity over any issues. You are just as "duped" as they are!


"Globalized Economy" made it possible to balance this country's budget during the nineties & to me, all that means is exploiting & plundering the workers of somebody else's nation! Outsourcing
goes hand & hand with Imperialism & I have yet to hear any Democratic leader suggest an end to it.

Falling for the ideal that participating in a vote on "pertinent issues" could ever possibly bring an end to the massive corruption this country wallows in...that is the big fucking laugh!

End bigotry...you have demonstrated more "bigotry" right here on this board, against folks who haven't fallen for the ultimate capitalist scheme of disarming citizens. Do you ever feel as tho our leaders might be forseeing a time when the disadvantaged finally can't take it any more & stop shooting themselves & point the blame directly at the source? Have you ever studied the final stages of the capitalist system & the ultimate oppression that can (and most likely will) befall us? The first thing the failing fascist must do is disarm its populace! Convincing them to VOTE for such suicide is truly inspirational.

If anyone wishes to save the democratic ideals this republic stands for, now is the time to be uniting against the erosion of any & all human rights, not just here, but anywhere our country intrudes. And one of the things that means is recognizing when our Constitution is being misconstrued in order to remove or restrict common civil rights. I voted Democratic for one reason only...to prevent the Supreme Court from re-interpreting a right that I marched & fought for forty yrs. ago. The other things on your list are of no consequence, since the stances of both parties are practically interchangeable & backed by mighty corporations. (and I don't mean gun manufacturers!)

As I said before, "Turn in your weapons now to bring an end to violence against your people!" Just make sure to duck, once the homeland genocide begins! And again, you don't know the meaning of liberal.

[MrBenchley]

106. You've pointed out the BEST reason to support gun control, refill

"Would you care to compare and contrast Kerry's stated position on gun control and Bush's stated position on gun control? Frankly, they're indistinguishable."
Then why should we change our pro-gun-control position in any way at all? Seems to me the thing to do is to emphasize the Democratic Party's ACTUAL support for gun control and the many ways in which pResident Shithead's "stated position" is a flat out lie.

[MrBenchley]

70. Good grief! That explains why

"leftists" like Trent Lott, Pat Buchanan, and Ann Coulter are all so opposed to gun control (snicker).


"the concentration of power amongst a few top people"
You mean like NRA life member John AshKKKroft (who was so anti-gun control that even after 9/11 he prevented the FBI from checking to see if anybody on a terrorist watch list bought guns? Or do you mean hunting enthusiast rDeadheart Dick Cheney, who was keynote speaker at the NRA's ugly little klavern this year?

"Power flows from the barrel of a gun."
And horseshit flows from gun loonies...including the idea that John Kerry, John Edwards, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Frank Lautenberg, and Dianne Feinstein (to name just afew) are right wingers.

[DoNotRefill]

15. But it's NOT a right-wing position.

It's a liberal position (in the sense that it's "Power to the People" and NOT "Power to the Corporations and nameless bureaucracy") that the Republicans have co-opted away from us because of a few misguided individuals within our party that keep screaming about "Blood in the Streets".

[Sparkly]

21. Indeed it is a right-wing position

The Republican party opposes gun control; the Democratic party endorses it. Democrats from Dennis Kucinich to Bill Clinton endorse gun control; Republicans are against it except when it's politically expedient (witness the Chimp claiming in the debate that he's for closing background-check loopholes and for the renewal of the assault weapons ban).

There is no question that there's a historic and current difference in the parties on this issue. Let's not get side-tracked pretending otherwise.

[DoNotRefill]

28. Ah.

So because the Republicans realized that it's an issue they can use to bludgeon us with, it's a right wing position? If they found a way to out-"pro-choice" us, would being "pro-choice" make you a right winger? And did you miss Kerry's repeated gun photo-ops, and his claims that he would defend the Second Amendment? How about the fact that the VAST majority of gun control laws were actualy put into place by REPUBLICANS? Remember California's recent ban on .50 bmg rifles? Who signed it? How about Poppy Bush's 1989 EO regarding firearms imports from overseas? How about McCain's pushing for more gun control? And John Warner's pushing for more gun control? How about Reagan's support of the Brady Bill? Gun control is an issue of CONTROL. There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats out there, and there are plenty of anti-gun Republicans out there too. Saying that gun rights is a right wing issue is pure, unadulterated CRAP.

[Sparkly]

33. Oh good grief -- do you want a debate over how we define "position?"

How do YOU define "position?!"

Voting record, stated position, written platform, supported legislation, proposed legislation, you name it -- gun control is the Democratic position, and anti-control is the Republican position.

This is all a tangent. You are pretending "control" is the same thing as "ban;" you are pretending defense of the 2nd amendment is the same thing as anti-control. That's just not the case.

And this is not the point of my thread. If you do not claim you support the left/liberal/Democratic position on all issues, I wasn't addressing you. If you claim you do, you are working mightily hard to pretend that position is something different -- historically and currently -- than what it IS.

[DoNotRefill]

36. Really?

Mark Warner, (D-VA) ran on a gun friendly platform when he ran for Governor. Rick Boucher (D-VA) ran on a gun-friendly platform for US Congress. There's a LONG list of pro-gun Democrats out there, both on a State-wide and Federal level.

[Sparkly]

42. Those are people in red state elections who "moved right!!"

You can hardly site people like this as outspoken banners of the Democratic party!! They do not reflect the position of the left/liberals/Democrats nationally on this issue. They moved right on this issues because they are in red states -- an example of what I'm talking about.

I'm not debating whether that's right or wrong on this thread, and I suggest if you want that debate, you start a different thread.

[DoNotRefill]

45. Wrong.

Rick Boucher has ALWAYS been gun-friendly. That's why he's still in office, when so many other Democrats are not.

[Sparkly]

48. This thread is not about Rick Boucher and his need to move right in VA

Virginia is a red state. If you think moving right is correct to win elections, that is fine. I'm not addressing people who think it's a good idea to move right to win elections in red states. I'm addressing those who state that they will not compromise on any issue, yet compromise on this one.

I don't know if you're in that category or not, but stop trying to take this into a discussion ABOUT gun control as an issue. There are other threads for that, or you're free to start another.

[DoNotRefill]

49. So, let me get this straight....

your purpose in this thread is to accuse Democrats elected in Red states or any Democrat who is against gun control of being hypocrites? Is that where you're coming from? and if so, WHY would you want to do that? Aren't we hurting enough as a party already? Why do you want to pour salt into an open wound?

Oh, and BTW, Virginia is a red State....so explain why we've got a Democratic Governor (Mark Warner) and why we're one of the few states to elect an African-American Democrat governor since the Civil War (Doug Wilder)?

[Sparkly]

52. What this thread is for

is stated in the original post. This is about people who claim they will not budge from the Democratic/left/liberal position on any issue, but are silent at best on this one.

I think I've said it to you at least eight times now.

You know what Virginia is like in national elections; you know that discussions about "moving right" are national and not divided up by states; and you know what I'm saying by now unless you have a serious reading comprehension problem. So please, go start your own thread if you want to debate gun control as an issue.

[MrBenchley]

107. In fact, it shows why we shouldn't cave on any issue

Despite Boucher caving in on this issue and offering virtually the same position as the GOP for gun fetishists, Virginia still went red...

Perhaps if Virginia's Democrats offered moderate voters a real choice on the issue, it wouldn't have.

[MrBenchley]

57. Who ARE you trying to kid?

Every gun show is awash with swastikas and every neoNazi group around peddles "gun rights" at the toip of their rancid lungs.

"How gun control became associated with Democrats I don't know"
Lets see, what happened to JFK, RFK and MLK? If you're really sincere as to seing what the debate is REALLY about, you can't do much better than start here.

"Guns entered national politics in the 1970s. What is called the gun rights movement sprang into motion against a waning civil rights movement and a growing push for women's rights. One organizer of gun rights from the early '70s put it bluntly when I interviewed him. Conservatives were taking a beating. Something was needed to "reverse the flow in the pipes" of the civil rights movement. The social movements based on the rights of women and minorities had bolstered the Democratic Party. Conservatives who had fought against the gains of civil rights and the Equal Rights Amendment needed to counter. Enter the gun.
The beginnings of this movement were quiet. In the early '70s, the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative political organization, started the Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. From it sprang the Second Amendment Foundation and then Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In those groups a righteous cause and a political vision was born. Guns began their career as key props in a changing political theater.
Within two years, the Gun Owners of America organization appeared with its leadership roots in the John Birch Society. Thirty years later, the group remains true to its mission, a watchdog group making sure the gun rights movement stays on course, fulfilling its reactionary conservative mandate.
In the mid-'70s, the NRA was shaken by the in-fighting that came from this new awareness of gun rights as a powerful political tool. The bipartisan and even apolitical sports shooters lost control of the NRA and gun rights found a home. By 1975 the gun rights advocates in the NRA started the Institute for Legislative Action. Over the years they have continued to galvanize the gun rights movement. Expert political organizers, they get out the vote at every level of the political process in the United States. Today the gun rights movement registers voters at gun stores, shooting ranges and gun shows. There are between 2,500 and 4,000 gun shows in the United States each year. "

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

"And in case you didn't realize it, both JFK and Jimmy Carter were/are "gun nuts"."
Be sure and show us any quote by Jimmy Carter where he opposes gun control. And what happened to that guy JFK, anyway?

[DoNotRefill]

87. Actually, guns entered the national political life in the 1850's...

when Chief Justice Taney said in Scott v. Sanford that minorities couldn't be citizens, because if they were citizens they could own guns.


Yes, indeedy, gun control started as a means to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans. It still does a pretty good job of that. IMHO, that's not something to be proud of, but YMMV.

From the link you provided: "And by 1980, Ronald Reagan was helped in his election bid by millions of white working-class men, many former Democrats, who embraced a passionate political language in the gun rights movement."

"former Democrats"....people who used to vote for us, and who we have DRIVEN OUT by kowtowing to people like Sarah Brady (R).

How many MORE elections are you people willing to lose because you continue to push a failed authoritarianist policy?

[MrBenchley]

91. Actually, that's a steaming load of crap....

"From the link you provided: "And by 1980, Ronald Reagan was helped in his election bid by millions of white working-class men, many former Democrats, who embraced a passionate political language in the gun rights movement.""
Yeah, Reagan appealed to racism in a not very subtle way. And a lot of dixiecrats left the party during the 1970s. It was called the Southern strategy.

""former Democrats"....people who used to vote for us"
Not "us"...they used to vote for Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond for reasons that are blindingly obvious.

"How many MORE elections are you people willing to lose because you continue to push a failed authoritarianist policy?"
Jeeze, refill, if your popgun is more important to you than tanything else, you clearly ARE in the wrong party.

But as I pointed out, even the Republicans pretend they're for that "failed authoritarianist policy" (or as people who aren't libertarian loonies call it, common sense). If we're going to pitch out some sanity to try to appeal to right wing looonies, why not make it an issue where there's a stated dfifference?

And by the way, that policy is wildly successful everywhere in the civilized world....whereas the failure of unlimited gun ownership can be seen in places like Somalia and Colombia.

[lcordero]

7. heh

"Gun Control" is an authoritarian policy. "Gun control" disarms law-abiding citizens. "Gun control" led to thousands of citizens being robbed, murdered, and raped during the late 1980s and early 1990s in NYC.

[Sparkly]

11. If you believe that, fine.

I'm not debating that here. I'm addressing those who claim the party should not move to the right at all. If you're among them, it's the consistency of that claim that I'm talking about, not the issue itself.

[DireStrike]

8. I don't feel I personally know enough to debate the issue.

I know the second amendment and I know the positions, but I know very little of the data to back up either position.

I hope you'll forgive me if I don't put my life on hold right now to study everything that needs to be debated.


Gun rights are important. Gun laws are important. There needs to be a balance. I don't know where on that line we lay at current. I don't know where we should lay(lie?) so right now I'm just gonna leave it be.

[Sparkly]

13. And that's fine.

I'm not debating the issue itself here. I'm challenging those who claim the party shouldn't move right on any issue, claim they stand firm, and then are conspicuously absent when it comes to a stand on this issue.

[DireStrike]

19. But is it right or left?

That was my point. I don't know.

For the record, I think we should probably stay where we are or move left on most issues. The ideals of our official party may not represent the ideals of the party we wish we belong to, or the party we think the democrats are.

This is exactly the problem with us right now. We need to figure out what our underlying principles are so that we can define whether movement should be made on each issue, and whether that movement would be right or left. It cannot be based simply on opposition.

[Sparkly]

22. Gun control has long been a position of the left, and remains so

There's no question about that.

[DoNotRefill]

30. Really?

So Reagan didn't ban the manufacture of new machineguns in 1986? So Bush I didn't issue an executive order in 1989 banning the importation of certain guns? So John McCain (R-AZ) hasn't been pushing to "close the gunshow loophole"? So John Warner (R-VA) didn't support the AW ban? So Ah-nold (R-CA) didn't sign the .50 BMG ban?

[Sparkly]

37. Nice list

With absolutely no relative comparisons. You can pick and choose legislation on any issue, show one side, and make some claim based on it.

I guess to define positions on this (yet not on gay rights, reproductive rights, or other issues) we need to add the phrase "relatively speaking" to address this kind of spin! (Imagine that applied elsewhere -- we'd be seeing specific Republican actions on civil rights issues touted as 'liberal!')

"Relatively speaking," there is no question Democrats are pro-control, and Republicans are anti-control. I don't know why you're pretending otherwise.

[DoNotRefill]

41. I think it's a matter of regionality....

because Democrats here are very pro-gun and anti gun-control. Of course, here the NRA routinely endorses Democratic candidates, too.

[Sparkly]

44. Not what this thread is for

Go check the NRA's endorsements of Democrats vs. Republicans, and if you discover that they consider Republicans and Democrats the SAME on the issue of gun control (often decried as "you can't tell the difference between the parties!" or "Repug-lite!"), then start your own thread enlightening everybody about it.

[EstimatedProphet]

29. Dude you're not getting it

Supporting gun ownership rights is a move LEFT, not a move RIGHT. Taking away gun ownership rights is a move RIGHT, not LEFT. You've fallen for the media definitions. the media doesn't define things according to the political spectrum, they define things based on their audience. this is why the average republican voter can support the ideas of the republican party-they honestly think that the party ideals are about supporting the rights of individuals, because the media has painted them that way. They have been led to believe that a ban on gay marriage is about protecting their rights, just like a ban on abortion would be. the media has painted the gun ownership issue as a rightwing issue, but at its core it is about the rights of individuals versus the government, which is liberal.

[MrBenchley]

95. Say what?

"the media has painted the gun ownership issue as a rightwing issue"
Tell us, who makes up the Second Amendment Caucus in Congress?

(Answer: The farthest right wing of the Republican party)

[EstimatedProphet]

98. So what?

So gun ownership is backed by the right wing. This is supposed to mean that the philosophy behind gun ownership is rightwing, because they back it? No. They took it over. Its intent is clearly liberal.
Liberalism is support of individual rights over government rights. That's how it's defined. I could care less whether rightwingers support it or not-that's not my concern. IMO this is one of the few things they are right about. They are entirely wrong on supporting the government in intrusion into all the other aspects of people's lives, like abortion, civil rights, right to work, etc.

[MrBenchley]

101. Well, that IS funny...

In other words, a really idiotic right wing idea becomes a left wing idea if one has a popgun fetish....

"Liberalism is support of individual rights over government rights."
Gee, most individuals wish to see common sense controls on who's running around with guns, and what sort of guns they've got. Furthermore, they've got a right to expect such controls--just as they have a right to expect that people who end up with toxic waste as byproducts from their factories dispose of it safely and profitably.

"I could care less whether rightwingers support it or not-that's not my concern."
Must be nice to live in a vacuum, unconcerned with earthly events. Here on earth, very few of us believe that letting the gun industry run roughshod over the rest of us is a liberal idea in any way....

[EstimatedProphet]

108. So this is what it feels like to be made of straw...

In other words, a really idiotic right wing idea becomes a left wing idea if one has a popgun fetish....
That is such a completely bizarre statement, I have no idea how to address it.
Are you claiming that the 2nd amendment doesn't exist, or are you trying to argue its meaning? I don't think the 2nd amendment is a really idiotic rightwing idea, sorry. As for whether it is about personal gun ownership or state's rights-I know that there is an argument there, but I didn't think that this thread was about that argument, and I don't see how your statement addresses it. Also, that is simply not even close to the point I was making, so I will put the straw down now.


"Liberalism is support of individual rights over government rights."
Gee, most individuals wish to see common sense controls on who's running around with guns, and what sort of guns they've got. Furthermore, they've got a right to expect such controls--just as they have a right to expect that people who end up with toxic waste as byproducts from their factories dispose of it safely and profitably.

I just got rid of some straw, and you want me to hold more?
Of course I want common sense controls on guns. Let me list some of them:
No automatic weapons
No ownership by convicted criminals
No ownership by people judged mentally incompetent
No ownership by anyone under 16-without some form of parental guidance
Mandatory wait periods for background checks
Mandatory gun safety training before purchase
Trigger locks
Most of these things happen to be law already, and there are many more being considered which I support. And I agree that businesses should be held responsible when they are indeed responsible, too, and it is government's responsibility to see that the laws are enforced. The interesting thing is, I was talking about how actually, the RKBA is a liberal issue, because it is about the rights of the individual over the government. You're in reality arguing that the rights of the government over the individual is liberalism. It isn't. From Merriam-Webster.com:

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
C is the most relevant for this discussion. Gun ownership in and of itself falls under civil liberties. If you want to talk about restrictions on how gun ownership is approached, that's a matter of fine tuning of the law. If you want to instead make gun ownership illegal, that's a step rightward, by definition.

"I could care less whether rightwingers support it or not-that's not my concern."
Must be nice to live in a vacuum, unconcerned with earthly events. Here on earth, very few of us believe that letting the gun industry run roughshod over the rest of us is a liberal idea in any way....

I see-because I don't care whether the rightwingers believe the same thing as I do, I must therefore believe that the gun industry should be kowtowed to. That's absurd. It is patently irresponsible to formulate opinions based only on what an opponent does, to counter them. I am not going to spend my time trying to judge whether what I believe to be true has any validity based on who else believes it. It is far more important for me to judge what I believe based on what I think is right.
This thread was originally about why some people believe the Democratic party should move "rightward" on this issue, when they don't believe in moving rightward on any other issues. I made the point that, along the political spectrum, it would actually be a move leftward, not rightward. That is what my posts were about. I have no idea where you got your strawmen from, because I didn't bring them and they don't follow from what I said.

[MrBenchley]

110. The entire RKBA creed is nothing but lies....

"Are you claiming that the 2nd amendment doesn't exist"
The Second Amendment deals only with well regulated state militas, as the courts have ruled consistently and frequently. And no, I didn't bring that up...I was talking abolut this absurd notion that the rubbish being peddled by John AshKKKroft, Larry Pratt and Ted Nugent is "left wing" because some people have a gun fetish.

"I was talking about how actually, the RKBA is a liberal issue, because it is about the rights of the individual over the government."
Actually, RKBA is the rights of the gun industry over the individual. And that is why it is being peddled by far right wing extremists. It's no more liberal than it is mint-flavored, no matter how loudly you pout.

"I see-because I don't care whether the rightwingers believe the same thing as I do, I must therefore believe that the gun industry should be kowtowed to."
This IS funny. That's exactly what the RKBA amounts to. And if you want to line up with Grover Norquist, Marilyn Musgrave, and Dick Cheney, feel free. But it's ludicrous to pretend that the resulting puddle of pus is "liberal," and don't blame me when I laugh out loud at the claim.

And by the way, I am a progressive, and if I found that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, etc. ALL were for something that Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, David Duke, Alan Keyes, the Aryan Nation, and the KKK were for, I'd sure have second thoughts about opposing it myself. But I doubt I'd kick my heels and claim that the first bunch weren't liberal and the second bunch were.

[EstimatedProphet]

114. We will have to agree to disagree

I just don't like the taste of straw.

[MrBenchley]

117. Fine with me....

I got little patience for somebody who's trying to pretend anything being peddled by Grover Norquist and John AshKKKroft and Ann Coulter and David Duke is in any way, shape, or form "liberal"...

[readmoreoften]

17. I don't see how 'gun control' is a left wing issue.

If we are anti-authoritarian then we need the right to protect ourselves against a fascist government.

We're progressive. We believe in equality under the law. We believe in fiscal responsibility. We are against starting war for financial gain. We believe that an educated populace is a good thing.

That doesn't mean we won't own guns to protect ourselves from a state that's trending fascist.

[Sparkly]

25. The Democratic party has stood for gun control for a long time

and continues to do so. If you disagree, fine; that's not what this is about. ("Gun control" does not mean "gun ban!" But I'm trying not to get into that debate here -- there are plenty of other threads for that.)

This is for those who *claim* they refuse to move rightward on left/liberal/Democratic positions.

[mmonk]

18. The gun issue seems overblown IMO

Some people get all up in arms (pardon the pun) over assault weapons bans even though those bans don't take away the right to own a firearm. I guess you could take it to mean not to interfere with anyone's right to own any type of firearm I guess, but seems a bit much. So I should be able to own an Abrams M1 tank and park it in my driveway loaded? Maybe a howitzer for the backyard? Bazooka practice in the backyard?

[DoNotRefill]

23. Depending on the law of the state you live in....

everything you listed is legal. It's regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934, but under Federal law, it's not that hard to get, the only real problem is one of money, since stuff like that is prohibitively expensive. But if you've got $6-50 million to blow, you can even buy a heavy bomber or a Jet fighter.

[readmoreoften]

26. my biggest fear is that all the Freepers and the Government

will have all the guns when the revolution comes.

I don't care about the gun issue, really. But if the party doesn't want to budge on it, I also don't care. I just say let's take a big LEAP to the LEFT.

[DoNotRefill]

32. the Second Amendment has never been about hunting ducks.

And we cannot allow the right to have a monopoly on the effective use of force. Look at what happened to the Social Democrats during Weimar.

[mmonk]

35. Very true

However the weaponry is a little different now than when the amendment was written.

[DoNotRefill]

39. yup....

just like the instruments of a free press are a little different now than when the amendment was written. Does that mean that automated printing presses and the internet are not covered by the First Amendment? After all, the Founding Fathers NEVER would have dreamed of the Internet...

[Sparkly]

43. This is NOT what this thread is about

This is not a thread to debate the 2nd amendment. I think I've said this to you several times.

[DoNotRefill]

47. But I'm not debating the Second Amendment generally....

merely your erroneous opinion that if you're a Democrat, you MUST be for gun control. It's simply not true.

[Sparkly]

50. That is not what this thread is saying

I did not say "if you're a Democrat, you MUST be for gun control." There are Democrats who are against any number of things the party has stood for. That's fine. I'm addressing those who say "We will not budge from the party platform and move right on any issue," and then move rightward on this one.

If you're a Democrat who is against gun control and doesn't pretend to stand firm without "moving right," then I'm not addressing you. I'm not debating your opinion on gun control here. Please stop trying to divert this thread into that discussion.

[DoNotRefill]

51. I object to your position that Democrats stand for gun control, period.

SOME Democrats have championed gun control. They are a very vocal MINORITY.

[Sparkly]

53. "A very vocal MINORITY"

Disagree, period.

[MrBenchley]

93. What is especially funny...

is that in order to find a Democrat who is not part of what refill calls a "minority," one has to dig like a sumbitch among obscure folks from rural Dixie.

But then refill wants to pretend that John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schmumer, Frank Lautenberg, Ted Kennedy, etc. are not the mainstream of the party...but that Nick Rahall is.

[DoNotRefill]

102. Tell us about Dean's A+ NRA rating...

when he was Vermont's Governor...

[MrBenchley]

104. So how does Dean stand on the Assault Weapons Ban?

Why, he's for renewing and strengthening it.

Where does he stand on closing the gun show loophole?
Well, he's all for closing it.

And by the way, even with that gaudy "A" rating, Dean did no better than third in any major primary....guess not many Democrats think an NRA endorsement is worth the having.

[MrBenchley]

58. Well, that IS funny!

Tell us, which of the many candidates for president that began in the Democratic primaries did not advocate gun control? (Answer--none of them. Every one of them stood for commonsense gun control.)

[MrBenchley]

68. In fact, since even the GOP pretends to be for gun control

in order to deceive moderates and independent voters, why would we EVER want to cave on the issue of guns? After all, even pResident Shrimp announced he wanted to renew the AWB.

If we accepted the dubious bargain you're rightly rejecting here, there'd be very little reason to drop a priniciple that the other side also pays lip service to.

If you want to be unprincipled and pander to a group for temporary political gain, we ought to start sucking up to the "prayer in the public schools" crowd, or the "US is a Christian nation" loonies. They're an unreasoning, fanatically neurotic, dishonest fringe that the Republicans are actually sucking up to openly. fringe

[kentuck]

24. And no matter where you stand....or sit...

If you are a leader in the Party, you should be able to speak up, right?

[Eric J in MN]

40. We all have issues which are more important to us than

other issues, and we all want to win elections.

For some us economics is most important, and abortion rights are secondary.

For others of us, abortion rights are most important, and economics is secondary.

We all want the Democrats to be firm on our biggest issues, and we want to win elections, and that means perhaps compromising on another issue.

[Sparkly]

46. And that is fine.

I'm addressing those who pride themselves on a stance of "We will not budge an inch on any issue!" yet are strangely silent on this one.

[Sparkly]

54. My last post on this tonight

I'll point to this two-way conversation between myself and DoNotRefill as a perfect example of why I don't believe people who happily CLAIM they stand firm, won't move right, won't be "Repug-lite," etc... You obviously pick and choose what you consider "left" and "right" -- for some it's one issue, for some it's another.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2791220#2791936

[Threedifferentones]

55. I have never favored gun control laws.

Nor have I ever seen how they are a quintessentially liberal idea. To me, liberalism is basically about helping people who need help, and ensuring that as many people as possible live happy lives. I am of the opinion that gun ownership does not guarantee high murder rates, and therefore gun laws do not really help anyone. I also believe that an armed citizenry can be essential to maintaining a democracy, expecially in a place that can allow someone like GWB to be elected.



3DO

[knight_of_the_star]

56. I will not concede an inch

ESPECIALLY in the areas of civil rights and seperation of church and state! To move any further right from where the party stands as is would be inviting its own destruction.

[MrBenchley]

59. Exactly so!

This "which principle should we pitch out so we can be like the Republicans" rubbish is disgraceful.

[cleofus1]

61. regulate guns...that's OK

But hunting and fishing are not the exclusive province of conservatives.

[chocula]

65. well..

"we" don't have to compromise, but realize we might sometimes have to support candidates who do. At least until the culture moves back to the left, which it will. Sitting home in protest with our "priniciples" does absolutely no good when we can at least try to hold back the hard-line conservatives and GOP majority.

[Sparkly]

69. That's one point of view

And people who hold that view shouldn't complain that Democratic candidates are moving right on positions to garner votes or becoming "Repug lite." That's all I'm saying.

[davsand]

67. I firmly support the 2nd I also think gun laws need to be enforced.

It is not hypocrisy to support gun ownership as a constitutional right yet to hope for enforcement of gun laws.

Look, I live in Boo-Foo no place, and if I call the Sheriff it is gonna be at least thirty minutes before I see anyone responding to that call. It has nothing to do with local law enforcement. It has everything to do with the fact that they can't possibly cover the turf and be every place at once.

Somebody kicks in my front door should I just ask them to hang loose till help arrives?

By the same token, in rural areas, I've seen more than one time in my life when a rabid animal is running around. Animal control in this county has ONE person on patrol...

I am not saying everybody needs to be running around with assault weapons chock full of "cop killer" bullets. What I am saying is, I generally think we need to enforce responsible gun laws. We have a lot of them on the books, but we typically don't enforce them without fail--It is kind of hit or miss (if you'll forgive the pun.)

I don't think guns are the litmus test of liberals, nor should they be. If you want to own guns--go for it. If you want to be irresponsible with how you sell them or USE them, then you need to be held accountable.

Just my two cents.

Laura

[Sparkly]

71. That's completely consistent with the basic Democratic/liberal position

No problem there. You're not arguing to "move right."

What I consider hypocrisy is "We will not move right on anything to garner votes!" ....then... "Oh, that's different."

Either one wants to move right on some issue(s) or one doesn't, and people should just be honest.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. There have been so many "let's move right" trolls that

I got tired of responding to them.

[datasuspect]

80. you'd be surprised how many rats scurry around when they think

the ship is sinking.

[sampsonblk]

81. My friend, I think you've missed something important

The "stand strong" posts are not about left or rright, they are about right and wrong - as in don't cave in to Bush when he's wrong and we're right. IWR is the best example, but there are so many others. Dems agreed that we had an "intelligence failure" that sent us to war with Iraq. That isn't left or right, that's called agreeing with bullshit in order to avoid losing swing votes.

Of all the issues that really broke us, that one is the killer. If the public understood that Bush lied us into an illegal war, Kerry would be in the White House. But sadly, our side did not forcefully make that case.

[Sparkly]

84. Nope -- I'm specifically talking about the debate on "moving right"

I'm talking only of discussions on whether Democrats should compromise positions to move closer to Republicans' positions, whether because Democrats are wrong, or whether to garner votes.

Such discussions have taken place on gay rights and abortion, for example, where the Democrats' positions were vigorously defended. My point is that hundreds of DUers will insist it's wrong to move closer to the Republicans' positions (and become "Rethug Lite"), yet they make exceptions, especially on this issue.

Either you DO want to move closer to Republican positions on some issue(s), or you don't. I'm saying people need to be honest about that and not insist they don't, when in fact they do.

[sampsonblk]

90. In that case, I am on your side

Its important that we have constructive discussions and get a sense of where we all are on the direction of the party.

As for me, I say we shouldn't move anywhere to gain votes. We should stick to our guns and make strong distinctions when they are wrong and we are right. That happens often enough.

[ibegurpard]

82. We might very well need those guns one day.

This is an issue on which I have changed my mind.

[m berst]

86. poor example for a test?

How is gun control a measure of one's commitment to the left?

Does "left" mean whatever the Democratic party stands for today?

I am not in favor of corporate tax breaks as a tool for implementing social policy, as per our candidate's platform. Does that make me "not left?"

[Sparkly]

89. Does it mean you want to move toward the right's position?

If so, then I think it'd be wrong to claim otherwise; especially while claiming the party shouldn't "move right" or become "Rethug lite" or needs to "take a stand."

No, I don't mean to imply that "left" means whatever the Democratic party stands for today. (In some areas, there's room for the party to move further left.)

[m berst]

97. there is a lot of confusion

I don't agree with very much of the party's platform. It is too far to the right. That is on the 15 most important issues.

Gun control I don't understand what left or right would be, so I was suggesting that it might not be the best example for determining who is true to the team and who is drifting rightward.

If gun control is "left" only because it is the party's position, then we are defining left and right by the party's positions. In that case I don't agree with very much of the party's platform, which makes me not loyal to the team, and since the only alternative offered to being loyal to the team is compromising with the right, it is pretty hard to make heads or tails of it for me.

[mike_c]

94. I am a strong gun control advocate....

I have NEVER discussed this issue on DU because I realize that most people are either ambiguous about the issue or so highly polarized that there are few arguments that will likely change their positions-- I am among that later group.

[MrBenchley]

96. Me too....

What I find hilarious about this whole debate is that if there WAS an issue on which we should abandon our principles and head to the right for a smattering of votes, guns would be an idiotic choice...since the Republicans now PRETEND to hold the Democratic position even though they don't. (You'll notice pResident Shrimp pretended in public he was FOR the assault weapon ban renewal while blocking it behind closed doors).

[RUDUing2]

99. how many of you agreeing to this post live in completely red states?

meaning governor, both the state house and senate and also both federal senators are republican and your states electoral votes went to bush?

[DoNotRefill]

103. Virginia isn't totally red...

We've got a Democratic Governor (Mark Warner, who ran on a "no gun control" platform), and our US House Rep is a pro-gun Democrat who is routinely endorsed by the NRA even against pro-gun Republicans. Until recently, one of our senators was Chuck Robb.

[MrBenchley]

105. So in other words...

Some of Virginia's Democrats already caved in on this issue, and it didn't do a damn bit of good....

Thanks for confirming what we already know.

[FubarFly]

100. You make an excellent point.

As a whole, the left is comprised of many factions, each with their own pet issue.

We have civil rights activists who are silent about environmental issues. Environmental activists silent about labor issues. Union activists silent about gay marriage, etc.

If we want to make regain our status as a viable national party , we need to be better organized, and more united.

Reaching a consensus on the issues that are important to us is a necessary, if messy, process. However, once we have a platform, we have to fight for all aspects of that platform to which we agree in principle, not just the issues that are most important to us.

We have to be greater than the sum of our parts.

[slowroll]

113. I'm really tired of hearing about this issue

And damn tired of trying to argue about it. I'm a pretty strong pro-gun advocate, belong to some organizations, hunt and own quite a few. I don't think it has anything to do with left/right perspectives but is almost entirely an urban/suburban vs. rural issue. It is incredibly difficult to show those who didn't grow up around firearms the role they play in traditional rural life and to get them to overcome their innate fear of guns. It's like trying to teach a citydweller to appreciate the smell of a cow field on a hot summer's day-they simply aren't equipped to do so, and feel smug and giggle at the very ridiculousness of the thought.

And so no matter how ineffective gun control proves to be, no matter how many votes it loses, no matter how clear the intent of the authors of the 2nd Amendment, no matter how counter-intuitive it is for a party that wants to ensure civil rights and cultural continuity for women, minorities, workers, homosexuals, the poor, the disabled, those of different religious backgrounds, etc. to be hell-bent on curtailing the rights of those who own firearms, certain folks will continue to attempt to do so, and do so with an ugly disdain that's clearly evinced on this and every other gun control thread on this board.

[GrrrlRomeo]

116. It's a state issue. End of arguement.

I've lived in several states, from the deep south, the northeast and to the northwest. I've lived in urban settings and rural settings. There is no one-size-fits-all gun control law that will work. It needs to be handled at the local level. People in rural areas need guns for entirely different reasons than people in urban areas. There's no reason to have a gun on a crowded city subway. When I'm living in a rural area, I do not fear or have any issues with the farmer down the road having a gun.

People living in the city have a fear of guns because when they hear a gunshot it means people shooting people...not people shooting deer or people scaring wildlife off their farm. There's nothing else to shoot at in the city besides people. And if you're living in a bad part of the city, you're hearing gunshots daily and it's not because anyone is hunting.

In rural areas, firearms are tools. In urban areas they're weapons. That's why laws need to be local, and not federal.

[MrBenchley]

118. Hard to get much more out of touch with reality than your post...

"how counter-intuitive it is for a party that wants to ensure civil rights and cultural continuity for women, minorities, workers, homosexuals, the poor, the disabled, those of different religious backgrounds, etc. to be hell-bent on curtailing the rights of those who own firearms"
Be sure and show us anybody anywhere in the RKBA world even mildly supporting "civil rights and cultural continuity for women, minorities, workers, homosexuals, the poor, the disabled, those of different religious backgrounds, etc." In fact, bigotry is rife among the gun loopy....just look at the bigoted specimens who make up the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus (Marilyn Musgrave, Tom Tancredo).

The NRA board of directors includes Grover Norquist, Ted Nugent, the nutcase who publishes "Soldier of Fortune" magazine and a handful of loonies with ties to white supremacist groups. The Gun Owners of America, the second largest group of gun nuts, is headed by a guy who held kaffeeklatches with the Aryan Nation and other neoNazis.

The chinless fuckwits of the KKK are even willing to forego their kneejerk racism when they peddle this RKBA bilge.

And a glance at any on-line gun nut forum will find hate, stupidity and intolerance blossoming with nary a word of opposition or rebuke.

Far as I can see, any disdain the trigger-happy here feel is well earned.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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