DLC positions on Gun Issues...

[SaveElmer]

Assault Weapons Ban

<snip>
The assault weapons ban is not an issue that pits "gun rights" advocates against "gun control" advocates. It's an issue that exposes the weird extremes to which conservative interest groups will go to oppose even the most reasonable gun safety measures. And now, it has also exposed the craven unwillingness of the Congressional Republican leadership and the president of the United States to stand up to those interest groups. In the fight to keep military weapons off our streets, the president and his closest friends have simply surrendered.
<snip>

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=119&subid=157&contentid=252871

Talking about Guns to voters

"Americans have a right to own a gun to protect themselves and their families."

Most gun owners are not hunters, so all the talk of supporting the rights of hunters and sportsmen is just blather to 85 percent of the gun-owning population.

Argument # 2
"The right to own a gun does not extend to terrorists, criminals, and illegal aliens."

The 86 percent of likely voters who believe in the constitutional right to own a firearm also understand that gun ownership rights should extend only to law-abiding citizens. Making that distinction in no way constitutes lack of support for gun ownership rights.

Argument # 3
"We need to make the instant check system truly instant and accurate."

That argument appeals to gun owners, who sometimes have to wait days to clear a background check because of faulty records. It also appeals to liberals who are rightly concerned that missing records allow domestic abusers, the mentally ill, and dangerous criminals to get guns.

Argument # 4
"Families attending gun shows should not have to rub shoulders with criminals because Congress mistakenly left open the gun-show loophole."

Argument # 5
"I don't support gun control. I support gun safety."

"Gun safety" is a more accurate term to describe measures like mandatory safety locks, closing the gun-show loophole, and better enforcement of existing gun laws.

Argument # 6
"I will champion New Hampshire gun values."

Respect people's upbringings and roots. Most gun owners store their firearms safely, teach their children to stay away from guns, and overwhelmingly support reasonable gun safety laws --

Argument # 7
"Enforce the gun laws! We have to close the gap between the gun crimes that are committed and those that are prosecuted. Enough talk, we need action."

Bush understood that he should talk about getting tough on enforcement during his campaign for the presidency, hanging President Clinton's poor enforcement record around Al Gore's neck. But guess what? The Bush record is wretched too.

Argument # 8
"We must safeguard our rights, bring traditional values to Washington, close the loopholes, and enforce the laws we need to stop criminals."

Democrats should speak to rural, small-town, and suburban citizens about their philosophy and policy agenda for promoting gun safety. Democrats shouldn't allow the NRA to label them as "gun confiscators" because they support background checks at gun shows.

Argument # 9
"I am opposed to the extremists on both sides. I reject the far-right groups that think gun ownership is an absolute right and the far left that thinks it is an absolute wrong."

Capturing the political center is the key to appealing to mainstream gun owners. Luckily, it's wide-open terrain.

Argument # 10
"I support gun owner rights, but, with all due respect, the NRA is wrong to oppose President Bush's renewal of the assault weapons ban, wrong to support the restoration of gun rights for convicted felons, and wrong to want to repeal the instant background check law."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=119&subid=157&contentid=251918

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[smoogatz]

2. DLC=Democrats Lose Continually

What's with all the DLC threads today? Whores and capitulators, the lot of them.

[dogday]

22. Bravo! I agreee

[longship]

3. Half of this is rubbish, the other half is a non-issue.

I'm a liberal, very liberal. But for christ-sakes, the right to bear arms is in the freaking Constitution. I don't think that that gives citizens the right to own nuclear-tipped missiles, but it certainly means that they can own hunting rifles and sporting arms. Somewhere between nuclear-tipped missiles and hunting rifles there is a line. I'd be willing to discuss with anybody where that line lies. But nobody can credibly claim that the line doesn't exist.

Gun control is a fact of life. The only debate is where the line is drawn. And that is something which *should* be debated.

The DLC is being divisive here. That's why I think much of what they do is counterproductive and damaging to the party.

[smoogatz]

4. The 2nd amendement says "arms."

Which, at the time, consisted of muskets, flintlock rifles, blunderbusses, fowling pieces, and, at the most destructive end of the spectrum, cannons. So, as a strict constructionist, I'd say you have the right to own a muzzle-loaded, flintlock rife. Maybe a cannon. But that's about it.

[Claymore]

11. So...

{So, as a strict constructionist, I'd say you have the right to own a muzzle-loaded, flintlock rife. Maybe a cannon. But that's about it.}

Does that mean that the First Amendment only protects things that are printed on a press from the 18th Century?

[smoogatz]

56. Bad analogy.

It doesn't say printing, it says speech and "the press"--a generic for all sorts of publishing. Neither represents a significantly greater danger to society now than they did in the 1780's. Guns, on the other hand, are considerably more lethal.

[OrlandoGator]

16. "Arms" are defined as weapons that can be carried by a single soldier.

n/t

[derby378]

65. By the way, that includes a minigun.

Careful what you wish for... :toast:

[mixedview]

5. I'm an independent and I support reasonable gun control, but

I'm uncomfortable with the idea held by some that citizens don't have the right to defend themselves - whether it be guns or pepper spray or their own fists or whatever. It seems that the law tends to look more kindly on the criminal than an honest citizen acting in self defense.

The literal interpretation of the second amendment may not be as valid in today's world, but the VALUES underpinning it are (this is true for much of the Constitution - it's about the values) - that one has the right and the duty to defend oneself.

A free society depends on a moral, informed - and armed populace. The very concept of freedom means the government can't and won't protect it's citizens 24/7, so citizens must bear some of that responsibility themselves.

When the government decides to assign bodyguards for each citizen, then and only then can the second amendment be overturned.

[SaveElmer]

6. So these DLC positions must appeal to you...

Pretty much what they are saying here!!!

[mixedview]

32. Yes. I actually support the idea of a national registry

like what Gore proposed in 2000. Freedom only works for everyone (and not just one or a few individuals) when freedom is democratically regulated. This is a fact, as much as we all like to romanticize absolute freedom, there is no such thing.

However, what I'm fearful is the idea held by some (million mom types, law enforcement types, etc) that self defense is some wacky, outdated notion, and that it should be almost impossible to own a gun (as it is in NY or CA). They live sheltered middle class lives and trust the system too much.. a system that can't and won't protect them 24/7. Maybe the government should have a greater duty to protect us. Maybe we do need less of a free society to deal with the challenges of the modern world (e.g. terrorism). But until we get to that point, citizens must have the right to defend themselves, and that right must be held up as sacred - not marginalized.

[SaveElmer]

38. Makes sense to me...

We have to figure out a way to convey that position to the voters to keep the NRA from mis-characterizing it!

[longship]

7. As a liberal

I have no problem with what you wrote.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

10. So would you say the DLC approach is helpful in this regard

Cast the debate away from the turf laid out by the NRA?

[Toots]

58. There are other considerations as well

I believe there should be a longer period of time involved to purchase a gun than "instant check". The so-called "cooling off" period. What possibly could it hurt if you had to wait an extra day or two to purchase your gun. How many people are shot in a fit of rage? A spouse is beaten and runs down to the local gun shop buys a gun a returns to kill their husband or wife in a fit of rage that probably would never happen if they had a day or so to think things over. Also a drunk may do things while intoxicated that they would never do in their right frame of mind. I do not want to take anyone's gun but some sensible saftey requirements should be considered, IMO.

[SaveElmer]

8. Specifically what do you disagree with one here?..nt

[longship]

12. I disagree with the characterization

:rant:
Liberals are not against guns. To characterize it any other way is rubbish.

I am so sick and tired of DLC bullshit. They demonize the core of their own party while they appease the Repug lunatics. That's not what I would call unity.

I have no problem with Democrats disagreeing with me on any number of issues. I don't care if there are Dems who are anti-choice. I don't care if there are Dems who want to give corporations personhood. They are all welcome to the party of Jefferson. But, when a fringe group tries to say that they are the mainstream, it's more like the religious wackos taking over the Repugs than what I would call unity.

I strenuously object to the DLC and every divisive thing they do. The Democratic Party does not need the DLC. Without the Democratic Party the DLC would have nothing to complain about except the Repugs. Just who do they think the enemy is? It very much looks like it's their own damned party. No self-respecting Democrat should give them comfort.

:dem:

[SaveElmer]

13. I think you missed the point of the article...

The idea is to remove the perception...especially in red states...that democrats are against all gun ownership. We are not...
Sure there are fringe people who think all guns are bad...but I don't think anyone has suggested that this applies to the vast majority of Democrats...Liberal or not.

The fact of the matter is we have allowed to NRA and the Republicans to frame the debate...the idea is to reframe it to our advantage, and this article proposes a framework to get there...

If you can point to something specific in the article you disagree with that would be appreciated!

[longship]

14. I reject in total this concept.

The concept of capturing the center. The concept of appeasement. The concept of not making waves. The concept of getting along with the Repugs. All are prescriptions for failure as has been demonstrated in spades over the past two decades.

We don't need the DLC to tell the Democratic Party that the NRA has power well beyond their size. We don't need a thing called the DLC to tell the Democratic Party how to frame an argument. Each and every one of the DLC members are totally capable of speaking for themselves. What I object to the most is that the DLC frames their rhetoric as if they were the Party. They are not, nor will they every be. The Democratic Party is far more emcompassing than that. Maybe that's what the DLC cannot tolerate.

Well, they haven't done so well the past two decades. Maybe it's time for them to quiet down a little. They should certainly put forth their ideas, but the Democratic Party doesn't need its own version of the Religious Right, which is what the DLC represents (to my thinking).

on edit: And by the way, I am in total agreement with the DLC gun position paper. I just don't understand your rationale for posting the opinion under the DLC rubric. It's a very divisive thing to do. It is that which I cannot get over.

[SaveElmer]

17. So your objection to the DLC itself

Will not allow you to address the merits of the specifics in this article?

Do you think, for example, that the NRA has succeeded in casting Democrats as anti-gun?

Do you think it is important to get this perception reversed?

If you do think that is important, how would you go about it? And how would your proposals differ from these?

[longship]

19. You betcha.

They are a organization who have done nothing but damage a great party by dividing us amongst ourselves. Unlike the other caucuses, they claim to be the mainstream party who speaks for the party. That is not true, and will never be true.

[SaveElmer]

20. So you can't...I understand!

Good luck to you then!

[longship]

27. I'm a Democrat.

That's all I am. There's no such damned thing as a typical Democrat. We're not liberal. We're not moderate. We're not socialist. We're not conservative. But we are all of these things.

What we have in common is a love of our country and a belief that the country can be a better place where things can improve with a little help, encouragement, vision, or whatever you want to call it from a caring, ethical, and open government.

I will encourage and actively support a progressive liberal for the nomination, but will actively support and vote for any Democrat who wins that nomination. I sincerely hope that it is a progressive, but it doesn't have to be.

Let's celebrate our diversity, not our divisions.

[SaveElmer]

33. No argument there my friend!!...nt

[Tommymac]

23. Bravo Longship !!!

Great post.

I especially like your point, DLC=RR in context of their location in the party's ideology.

:applause:

[SaveElmer]

25. What do you think about the article?...nt

[Tommymac]

45. On the OP...

I agree in principle with most of it. Of coarse, I am the rarest of progressives; I believe in the 2cd amendment and if people want to own a tank, well, as long as they get the proper clearances, and are checked out and responsible owners, our Constitution allows it. I don't like it, but that ain't the point.

I do not see the value of putting down the left wing as the (second)article itself does...for example, in point #9 the snarky remarks about Mass and San Francisco are totally unneeded and divisive. Why does the DLC continue to try and talk out of both sides of their mouths? Why are they trying to distance themselves from those in the party with real conviction in what they believe in?

This is what the problem is...and real everyday people recognize it. The DLC is not doing this out of a core of deeply held passions about their beliefs...they are doing it out of political expediency. On the other hand, using the NRA,(the group involved in this issue on the other side) as an example, the opposition bases it's stance on real passion, true conviction. And Joe Sixpack may be uneducated, but he ain't dumb....he recognizes a true believer when he sees one.

Howard Dean touches on this in his stump speech in his story about a Conservative Christian woman who supported him in 2002/3 for President; he asked her why she supported a liberal who had diametrically opposing views on everything she believed in...and her response was she gave him her support because of his convictions in his stance. He was a True Believer...and she knew that if he had to make a decision, he would do so out of real conviction and not political expediency.

The DLC is all about political expediency...the left wing, like it or not has conviction. That is the difference....it is in the messenger, not the message

[longship]

46. Bravo.

I also agreed with the positions, but was highly offended by the snarky remarks (as you phrased it).

If the DLC is intent of dividing the party, they are achieving that goal, because I am now totally against them as an organization as much as I would be totally against the Republicans.

I will support any Democrat who achieves a nomination to an office, but I will do everything in my power to undermine the DLC's blatant political power grab. They are not the majority of the party and have no claim on anything other than their positions, which they are more than welcome to put forth--as long as they keep their feet off the furniture and get along with the rest of the household.

[Tommymac]

51. That is my position too.

I don't mind the DLC voicing their opinions, trying to shape the paltform, etc. But to say they have the only answer, is arrogant and divisive.

I sometimes wonder if they do this on purpose...talk about uniting but in reality act to divide. Kind of reminds me of someone else...a "Uniter not a Divider".

I too will support my party....I am a liflong Dem....but I am starting to reach the end of my patience....I have wondered why real old school repubs hung on when the neo-cons took over their parry...I will not be one to sit around and let a similiar group take over the Democratic party without a fight; and I will not remain a Party member if they do.

[SaveElmer]

52. Yeah that point has merit...

I find I agree with many of their positions...but they do project a bit of superior smugness...they really ought keep Al From off TV...

My hope, and I know most here probably do not like her, is that Hillary will be able to soften this image, and actually work with other parts of the party. I do think she ought be given the chance anyway

[Tommymac]

61. She has a chance...just like a lot of others...

IMHO it is a bit early to be positioning for 2008...we need to spend most of our efforts on 2006...after all, we have to overcome both the Rethug propaganda machine and the electronic vote machines.

I will try to keep an open mind and evaluate all candidates; however I personally do not think Hillary has a strong shot in a general election - she is too polarizing on both sides; especially the right. They will come out in droves to vote against her...not sure we need to help them energize their base. Her candidacy IMHO would be a crap shoot...and we need a Slam Dunk.

[SaveElmer]

50. I reponded to you..but put the post in the wrongs place

Accidentally responded to myself...anyway here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4196785&mesg_id=4198014

[longship]

37. Not just ideology.

I would say the same if the DLC were a socialist group. It's not their ideology that I object to. It's their tactics--divide and conquer--that parallel the religious right. The DLC has caused our party much grief the past two decades by their blatant attempt to impose their control over the party apparatus. They have had mixed success in this, but have continued their divisive rhetoric--demonizing those who disagree with them.

What's a liberal to do when the opposition party AND a faction of his own party are both labelling him as an extemist. Hell, the only reason why somebody could get away with calling mainstream liberalism extreme is if they themselves had taken a tack to the right. The DLC is positioned precisely where a conservative republican would have been in the 1950's. No wonder we can't win the White House!! Or the Senate!! Or the House of Representatives!!!

But the DLC doesn't see this. They only look at their own plight of being a traditional Republican in a party which is otherwise full of Democrats, although they would never characterize it that way.

Well, DLC. Welcome to the Democratic Party. We do hope that you behave yourselves and not try to divide us one against the other. You're welcome to stay. Please keep your feet off the furniture and get along and be good citizens and we'll all be fine. You're welcome to state your positions. But you are not welcome to make claims on that which is much bigger than you--that's the Democratic Party itself.

[blurp]

26. The constitution is a living document

I'm a liberal, very liberal. But for christ-sakes, the right to bear arms is in the freaking Constitution.

You might say it "is in the...constitution" but that is a matter of opinion. For example, who is in a militia anymore? The court should rule that no militia exist anymore and therefore no one has the right to bare arms.

There have been many times when good laws were thought to be unconstitutional until we got some good LIBERAL judges on the court.

And that's what we mean by "living document": it changes with the times. Conservatives don't want change. That's why they don't agree that it's a living document.

The time for gun control is now. Of course all the right-wingers on the court prevent this at the moment.

[longship]

30. I understand that.

As I wrote, the right to own a hunting rifle is not in dispute here. The lack of a right to own a nuclear missile is not in dispute here.

But somewhere between a nuke and a 30-06 is a line where there are arms you can own on one side, and arms you cannot on the other. I feel strongly that it is in the government's best interest to draw that line in a responsible place where people's freedom is not infringed, and at the same time the people are not under a continuous fear of being dead because the line was set too high. As a liberal, I think assault weapons belong above the line. Other people (including the NRA) disagree.

Also, one has to be practical. Say that you are going to register hunting rifles, and you wouldn't be able to win an election for dog-catcher.

[SaveElmer]

35. Well said...my position as well...

And I think that is probably a majority view!!!

[paineinthearse]

15. Please start a new thread: DLC position on globalization/offshoring jobs

I'd be most interested in reading.

thanks

[SaveElmer]

18. Actually I will...

With all the DLC threads going around recently I thought it would be interesting to put up their actual position papers and talk about them...just going through them one by one to give people a chance to look at them...may take a while though there are alot of them!

[SaveElmer]

49. I posted a thread on the DLC position on CAFTA if you want to comment

<eom>

[paineinthearse]

57. Link? nt

[SaveElmer]

59. Right...here you go!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4197698&mesg_id=4197698

[Greyhound]

21. Didn't any of you see Bowling for Columbine?

We are Americans, we are afraid of everything, We really, really, really, love our guns. Make us afraid of losing our guns at your own peril. :hide:

[SaveElmer]

24. So what do you think of the ideas in this article?

I think it is trying to make suggestions for ways to reframe the debate in our favor. Obviously, most Democrats, liberals included are not for banning all weapons, but we have allowed the NRA to paint us that way...seems to me we need to fix that problem, seems to me like this is a good start in that direction

[Jack_DeLeon]

29. So what are you for "banning"

Obviously, most Democrats, liberals included are not for banning all weapons

That obviously implies that you are for banning something? So what something or somethings are that?

With your statement you could be for banning everything except a butter knife or a pointy stick.

[SaveElmer]

31. Good point...

I know it is a tough issue, with alot of debate over what type of weapons are used for what. In general I would be for the restriction of any semi-automatic weapon designed for a military purpose..(as opposed to self loading hunting weapons). These weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people rapidly and ought to be banned for civilian use.

I understand that manufacturers will simply change the look of these weapons, and change some peripherals to make them pass muster. All issues that need to be dealt with. I would start by reauthorizing the 1994 assault weapon ban.

But of course, as the article points out...most people don't own these types of weapons, and yet they feel Democrats want to take away the guns keep for self-protection. That simply is not the case...and I think we need to reframe the debate so that is made clear

[Jack_DeLeon]

36. Congrats you've just banned one of the most popular handguns in America...

In general I would be for the restriction of any semi-automatic weapon designed for a military purpose

You would support banning one of of the most popular handguns in America. The model 1911, .45 cal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911

most people don't own these types of weapons

Thats an assumption, I would argue that you are wrong.

You would also ban several popular hunting weapons.

Such as the M1 Garand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand

or the SKS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS

[SaveElmer]

41. Yeah again...I am not a gun enthusiast per se...

I own and fire several antique black-powder weapons...more of a history freak really!

Obviously there has to be debate and discussion over the best way to go...though I don't think either of those weapons was in the assault weapon ban. And I think some sort of grandfather clause might be in order for certain weapons.


However I do think a line needs to be drawn somewhere

[Greyhound]

40. Thanks for asking like all of the 'gun control' positions, it is

unrealistic, unenforceable, and is just another distracting/dividing issue that politicians made up to keep you from watching what they're really doing. :hide:

[Jack_DeLeon]

28. Gun ownership is an absolute right...

its layed right out there in the 2nd amendment.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to give up my guns because a bunch of whites and some blacks in Congress dont think I need them.

My Mexican-American, Democratic representative opposed the Assault Weapon ban, and he also opposed its renewal.

[SaveElmer]

34. Respectfully I disagree...

And so do the courts. The founders themselves put limits on ownership by implying there were for the use of a "well regulated militia." The courts have held, rightly in my view, that this does not confer a blanket right to own any kind of weapon one wishes.

There is a line somewhere between a pea shooter and a bazooka beyond which we as a society are not willing to go. The debate is over where that line should be. The courts have simply said it is up to the legislature to draw that line.

[Jack_DeLeon]

39. you misinterpret the 2nd amendment.

The founders themselves put limits on ownership by implying there were for the use of a "well regulated militia."

The 2nd amendment doesnt restrict firearm ownership to members of said "well regulated militia." It just stated the fact that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state.

[SaveElmer]

42. Again...I disagree...

With all due respect!

Why would it then be included in that amendment on the right. Had the founders meant to confer an absolute right, they would not have muddied the clause with the militia condition. The founders clearly meant it to apply to the right to bear arms...and the courts have consistently interpreted it this way.

[MissMarple]

47. I agree that a " well regulated militia" implies some oversight.

The 2nd amendment seems to give the American people as a whole the right to bear arms, but not each and everyone of the American people, law abiding citizenry would fall under well regulated in a very liberal interpretation of the amendment. Also well regulated could infer a certain amount of expertise in handling and responsibility in maintaining the arms in question.

[SaveElmer]

53. Yeah...

Not sure the courts have interpreted it that way...so far they seem to have taken the position that it is up to the legislatures.

However, efforts up to now haven't really been focused on denying people guns, just regulating the types of guns they can have.

[OrlandoGator]

71. Why is 2A the only amendment that establishes rights of a group?

Everything else in the Bill of Rights pertains to the individual.

"Well-regulated militia" is not a qualifier. It is an example. And the militia is composed of civilians.

[Greyhound]

43. As always, for the 1000th time

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Pretty straight forward until lawyers get hold of it. Also note the position, unless you think they worked on this for all those years and then listed them randomly.

[Paladin]

54. So In Other Words.......

....by your logic, the Third Amendment (no quartering of soldiers in private residences; not an issue since the Civil War), is more important than, say, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments, simply because it comes before them? Yeah, right.

And if the Second Amendment is such a slam dunk, interpretation-wise, how come arguments like this one break out several times a week, down in the Gun Dungeon? Could it be related to the fact that the Supreme Court hasn't meaningfully dealt with the 2nd since 1939?

[SaveElmer]

55. Question...

Have any cases been referred to the Supreme Court and were simply not heard...or have none risen that high yet.

[Greyhound]

63. See this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4196785&mesg_id=4197837

Thats what I think about this issue. Nobody's changing any body's mind on this and it keeps lots of people away.

And yes I think they were put in order of importance. First the most fundamental right, to speak out and to be heard. Second the ability and means to resist those who would silence you. Then more specific limits on the government and citizen rights in dealing with it.
:hide:

[SaveElmer]

44. Let me ask you a question...

Are there any weapons you would ban?

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Okay so that means that grenade launchers and machine guns should be legal

If you support the 2nd amendment as an absolute, then you support the machine gun ban of 1934 being ruled unconstitutional.

[Jack_DeLeon]

70. Yes I'm against the NFA of 1934.

[SaveElmer]

48. Yeah...the shot on SF and Mass

Was not really necessary...especially if is Democrats you are trying to convince.

As to motivation I would have to disagree some...I think there those in every movement who are only in it for their own selfish purposes.

And I am sure this is true for the DLC as well...but I am not willling to paint that broad of a brush here. Half of the Democrats in the senate are members, including John Kerry , Kent Conrad, Max Baucus etc. I have no doubt of their sincerity. I also have no doubt of Hillary Clinton's sincerity on major issues. She is playing a bit of a political game on some things...but she is running for President, and will have to run against a party that is the master of that type of thing.

Anyway...my $.02 on it!

[Tommymac]

60. Guess we can agree to disagree!

and we will ALL be solid when it counts...bet on it.

:toast:

[paineinthearse]

62. SaveElmer is on a roll

DLC Position on Stem Cell Research and latest Bill...
Topic started by SaveElmer on Jul-26-05 09:42 PM (2 replies)
Last modified by paineinthearse on Jul-26-05 10:16 PM
DLC Position on Gitmo and detainee status
Topic started by SaveElmer on Jul-26-05 10:06 PM (2 replies)
Last modified by paineinthearse on Jul-26-05 10:15 PM
DLC positions on Gun Issues...
Topic started by SaveElmer on Jul-26-05 04:28 PM (61 replies)
Last modified by Tommymac on Jul-26-05 09:48 PM
DLC Positions on Trade...pt. 1 CAFTA
Topic started by SaveElmer on Jul-26-05 06:19 PM (22 replies)
Last modified by 1932 on Jul-26-05 07:39 PM
DLC Position on Energy...
Topic started by SaveElmer on Jul-26-05 05:30 PM (9 replies)
Last modified by SaveElmer on Jul-26-05 07:29 PM
DLC Position on Global Warming...
Topic started by SaveElmer on Jul-26-05 05:09 PM (2 replies)
Last modified by SaveElmer on Jul-26-05 05:18 PM

[Guaranteed]

64. And THIS is where the DLC stands STRONG! YES! Gun control!

Pure genius!

[SaveElmer]

66. Not sure I take your meaning..

Can you elaborate!

[Guaranteed]

67. I mean, of ALL the issues that we could stand strong on- tax cuts,

deficits, abortion, gay marriage, foreign policy, etc., etc....

The one issue that they are actually consistent on is GUN CONTROL. The one issue that KILLS us.

[SaveElmer]

68. You know...

I haven't been able to find a position paper on abortion on their site...

They don;t actually have a set of standard talking points that they have voted on or something...they have a series of articles on various policy topics...and I don;t see on eon abortion...I'd like to actually!

If you look at their positions on climate change and energy policy you might find things more to your liking there as well...