10% of 80 million gun owners = Democratic Trifecta

[Peak_Oil]

This is the issue that will win the Democratic Party the Presidency, HR, and Senate. We should really get behind this issue and push. I'd really rather not soften on the abortion issue, so this is probably the single biggest one we can push for a huge win in 08.

Define the debate around personal liberty and local government regulation, promote personal freedom.

Hell, even spend money on firearm safety classes and education for firearms owners. We'd walk into all three at the same time, and dismantle the scary Republican Dominionist stranglehold on our government.

And, it's the right thing to do.

[andyhappy]

1. are there really 80 million gun owners?

[Lefty48197]

52. 80 million legal gun owners, less than 4 million NRA members

The truth is that the vocal right wing gun owners who make up the NRA and the KKK total no more than 5% of all the gun owners in the USA. Of course, they'd like you to believe otherwise.

[clutchcargo]

75. I WAS AN NRA MEMBER ONCE--BUT

dropped my membership when they continued to advocate ballistic tip bullets that can pierce Kevlar vest the police wear and insisted on the LEGALITY of plastic made hand guns which have no practical use except to get thru security screening at airports and other places. This was way before the assault weapon issue.

[thoughtanarchist]

2. I'm on that bus...

It's a matter of freedom.
gun toting lefty over here!

:hi:

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[thoughtanarchist]

13. elaborate pls?

what's so shitty about it?

I really don't understand...

[sled]

56. Huh???

You must be looking in the mirror, when you wrote that...

[hollowdweller]

45. me too Gun Control should not be a core issue of our party.

[El Biggo Doggo]

60. I know at least 4 people we've lost forever because of this issue

banning guns won't solve our problems and only alienates the good people who are into shooting sports, hunting and collecting. who cares about the criminals? criminals don't vote!
CALIFORNIA IS PARTICULARLY -whoops- egregious on this. Our gun laws are nonsensical.

[Mr.Green93]

3. and local government regulation

Like San-Francisco or New York City or Chicago?

[thoughtanarchist]

6. Fine with me...

If NYC voters want to make it illegal to carry I can leave the heater at home.

[Mr.Green93]

14. leave the heater at home.

It is illegal in the home also.

[thoughtanarchist]

15. really? only outlaws have guns in NYC? n/t

[enigami]

23. YES

outlaws and cops everyone else is just caught in the crossfire

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

65. Big Myth...

We've heard to the "restrictive New York City gun laws" meme so often that people are starting to think it's true. You can purchase and possess handguns in New York City, and they even have conceal-carry permits available (Howard Stern has one, just in case one of those blonde bimbo's should attack).

It's true that the permits are expense (like everything else isn't expensive in New York) and they have some additional hoops -- like ballistic finger-printing of all firearms sold. But the idea that "guns are prohibited in New York City" is simply false.

[d_b]

97. Yea, like that Amadou Diallo fella.

[Peak_Oil]

7. Yes.

I think a municipality should be able to pass ordnances for their citizens' benefit. I've heard that in Florida, a CCW holder can drink in a restaurant while packing. I'm not so sure I'm for being quite that liberal about mixing alcohol and firearms... sounds dangerous... but some places will want that. Others, like Chicago or SF, can limit firearms with local laws.

But on the FEDERAL level, we should actively take the stance that the 2nd amendment is a PERSONAL right that belongs to the citizens, not to a Nat'l Guard unit.

No reason to displace the NRA. They're a single-issue organization. Come out with a statement like the above, and the NRA will change their logo to blue for us. Use their credibility (whatever you may think of it) to influence the 80 million gun owners out there.

We don't have to make nice with the Fundaliban, just the sportsmen and outdoorsy environmentalist types. This is enough to sway a national election.

Ten percent is all we need.

[mrgorth]

10. This will not happen

The RNC has been sucking them for decades. They won't just jump like that.

[mrgorth]

4. Fine but

how do we get them away from the NRA party. YOu have to be more specific.

[billbuckhead]

5. This isn't true. here in Georgia we had a proNRA governer who was beaten

Maybe it was the Diebold voting machines, maybe it was the Confederate Flag, but sucking up to the gun lobby won't help us, the bad guys will just find a new wedge issue. It's like feeding the alligator so he won't eat you instead of draining the swamp. We have to start holding the red state lifestyle including it's promiscuous attitude toward guns and violence up as antihuman, immoral and against freedom in general.

[goju]

8. Yeah, that will work

:eyes:

We have to start holding the red state lifestyle including it's promiscuous attitude toward guns and violence up as antihuman, immoral and against freedom in general

Im sure telling all the religious gun owning god fearing types that they are immoral and antihuman will surely win in 08. While your at it, why not tell them that tax cuts are evil too? :eyes:

[Peak_Oil]

9. Not sucking up to the gun lobby. Sucking up to the citizens!

These are our fellow citizens. There's 80 million of them.

By the way, it's bad logic. One pro-NRA type got beat, therefore all pro-NRA types will get beat. The correct way is ALL-NRA types got beat, therefore this particular NRA-type got beat.

We need to start picking wedge issues of our own to stand on. This one's got legs.

[thoughtanarchist]

12. I have to agree...

this is just about the only mainstream issue I can think of where dems hold a position of restricting personal liberty.

a consistant platform of protecting the personal freedoms of citizens can be a huge boost for the party.

[enigami]

16. The problem is...........

It will take MUCH more than talk to convenience even ten percent of Gun Owners that they can trust democrats on this issue. I am not sure I even would trust those prominent Dems like HRC,shummer etc:.
And the in fighting within the party would be brutal, just look what happens on this board when the issue comes up.

[thoughtanarchist]

17. good point...

but Pugs don't worry about infighting or disrespecting the base...

they go with what wins elections and everyone just falls in line...

...after all the damage done by this administration, would you let that one issue pull you away from the party's candidate? ...knowing the alternative?

[enigami]

18. Tough one isnt it? n/t

I could Never imagine myself voting for Schummer

[sled]

58. "after all the damage done by this administration"

I want more guns, & more ammo... ;-)

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

66. Hunting last month in Michigan...

I spent a lot of time with one of my wife's uncles in the Upper Peninsula -- the Reddest part of a Blue State. He's a veteran and a lifelong union member and Democrat. But when we were talking politics, he just shook his head and said, "How did the Democrats ever let themselves get on the wrong side of gun control? We're supposed to be the party of the common man."

When you talk gun control in the Red States, they don't see it as a problem of crime and the interest of public safety. They're afraid somebody's going to try to ban a significant part of their culture. And they're not just paranoid. A couple of years back, one of the anti-gun organizations started yapping about a ban on "sniper rifles."

What's a sniper rifle? It's a hunting rifle that you point at a human being. You can see why they'd be worried, and how these group drive working class voters into the arms of the NRA and the Republican Party.

[sled]

78. Colorado

Mountain country here, & a Dem better pledge allegiance to the NRA, or GOA, or both...a non-starter, with the country folk, & most of the front range...gun contol's a loser, in these parts...maybe in Denver & Boulder, but nowhere else...

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

82. Isn't that what Salazar did?

I think I posted David Sirota's Washington Monthly article on this thread. It's mostly about the Montana governor's race, where a progressive Democrat won in 2004. I think he mentions Salazar as being cut from the same cloth -- recasting environmental concerns in ways that resonated with hunters.

[sled]

84. That's it

It's easy to sit in an urban area, & try to tell folks, that actually live on the land, how they should handle things, that city folks don't even have a clue about, & it's a loser.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Republican leadership's a bunch of corporate shills, but the people, that live in the boonies, aren't as stupid, as folks try to portray them. Some, maybe, but they think the same, of urban folks, because the words, of a very few.

They call urban folks "tree huggers", & city folks call them "right-wing nutjobs", & both think it's political discourse. Neither's true, but everybody picks the worst, off both, & just attacks. And they've got blog's, etc., to prove it...both sides.

Just keep screaming past each other, & nothing gets solved...but they're not giving up those guns, you can take that, to the bank...just pissing in the wind.

Salazar didn't change, to get some votes, he just has the pulse, of the people, he wanted to represent, & went with what he already knows. You don't have to fake, what you really believe, in the first place.

[moggie12]

96. Red state lifestyle

Yikes! Your statement re: "holding the red state lifestyle including its promiscuous attitude toward guns and violence up as antihuman, immoral and against freedom in general" is pretty over-the-top. I don't think redneck-bashing helps anything. It just inflames the fires for no good purpose.

[OnionPatch]

19. Gun-totin' lefty here too

and female to boot.

I think we do have to do something to put it out there that most Dems do not want more restrictions on gun laws. I'm not sure how to do this but I certainly do NOT want to cozy up to the NRA. As far as I can see it, they are just a propaganda arm of the RNC.

Maybe gun safety classes would be cool, or our own gun association. At any rate, I know more than a few people who could probably be pulled back into the Democratic party if they weren't so afraid we were planning to take their guns away.

[formernaderite]

35. Gun toting lefty too....but most of the dems in my area favor....

gun control. Heck, I've met a few who's seriously like to outlaw any citizen ownership. It's the one issue where I veer completely over to the Libertarian side.

[Piperay]

61. Same here

and I am not giving my guns up, not with the chimp regime in power.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Another surrender to the right?

The polls I've seen favor gun control.

[enigami]

21. polls give the pollster the answer they seek

when it comes to the ballot box gun control is a loser.....ask Al Gore

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Gosh, I thought it was Nader and the Greens that cost him.

Spin away. Pro-gun is a rightwing sacred cow.

[enigami]

26. Bill Clinton

Said so himself.......His and Al Gore's stance on gun control cost Gore the election....Gore lost his own state. do not let your bias blind you to facts

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Oh well! If Bill (DLC) Clinton says so!!

Isn't he the same guy who said that attacking Iraq was a good idea?

[slackmaster]

40. Way too vague

The gun owners I know cover a very wide spectrum from far left to far right and everything in between, and I can't think of a single one who thinks there should be no gun control whatsoever.

If you favor some kind of gun control other than what we have in place now, please say specificially what you'd like to see and why.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. I know gun owners too. How about registration of all firearms?

The ones that I know have no problem with registering their guns.

[slackmaster]

44. I have to ask several questions before I could answer

I don't oppose gun registration per se, but just saying "register all firearms" lacks important details about the costs and benefits of a proposed registration system.

1. What would it cost to implement?

2. What would the ongoing maintenance expenses be?

3. How would the startup and maintenance costs be financed?

4. What information would be in the registry?

5. Who would manage the registry?

6. Who would have access to the information in the registry?

7. What would be the expected benefits of the registry? For example, if it would be used for criminal investigations, how many (and what kinds of) investigations would benefit from the registry annually?

8. Would there be any financial cost savings to the public to having the registry as opposed to the way things are done without it?

9. Would participation in the registry be voluntary or mandatory? If mandatory, specifically what types of firearms would have to be registered and what (e.g. antiques, muzzle-loaders, curios and relics) would be exempt?

10. If it's mandatory, what would be the constitutional basis for its enactment and enforcement? What penalties would apply for non-compliance? Who would enforce it, and how?

11. What safeguards would be included to ensure the registry data is not misused in any way, e.g. creating lists of gun owners for marketing purposes or something more nefarious?

I refuse to answer non-specific questions about proposed laws.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. In answer to most of the above questions:

Apply the same standards that are generally used for registration of cars.

You can pick it to death but the concept is simple. You want to drive a car, the car must be registered.

You want to drive a car you must be licensed to do so.

So, what's the problem? Money? How about a $10.00 licensing/registration fee?

[slackmaster]

49. Sounds great!

You've described an optional registration system that would have many benefits and few drawbacks. I like the idea.

You want to drive a car, the car must be registered.

Actually it's "You want to drive a car on public roads, the car must be registered." Car registration and driver licensing are all about usage, not ownership or possession.

Optional registration that would allow me to use a gun in public places anywhere in the USA? I'll be among the first to sign up. Of course I wouldn't have to register the guns in my collection that sit locked up in the safe not being used, just as I wouldn't have to register any cars that never get taken out except when they get trucked to car shows or races (if I was a car collector or racer).

Since I use my target rifles only on private ranges and BLM land, I wouldn't have to register them either.

If I decide to press one of my old guns into active service, I could register it at any time. And I could allow registration of any gun I own to lapse without penalty, or as we do in California pay a one-time non-operation fee that is good until I either get rid of the car or decide to re-register it.

You want to drive a car you must be licensed to do so.

Once again, the actual situation is "You want to drive a car on public roads you must be licensed to do so."

An optional federal license that would allow me to carry a loaded firearm for self-protection anywhere in public? Cool beans!

So, what's the problem? Money? How about a $10.00 licensing/registration fee?

If you can come up with a national voluntary gun registration and license-to-carry system that would be self-financed by a $10 annual fee I would volunteer to be your head cheerleader. That's a very reasonable fee.

:toast:

[LoZoccolo]

57. Who cares?

Not winning is a bigger surrender to the right.

Besides, when you go further left, you see less support for gun control. So yeah, we need to go right and left! Less gun control!

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Let me put it this way, I could live with a modestly pro-gun candidate

But he would have to be pretty damn good on all of the other issues. Russ Feingold would be a great example.

[billbuckhead]

28. 54% of Americans want stricter guns, only 11% want less strict gun laws

The Gallup Poll. Oct. 11-14, 2004. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?".

10/11-14/04
54% More strict
11% Less strict
34% Kept the same

<http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm>This website has dozens of recent polls about gun regulation and in almost all of them the majority of Americans want stronger gun regulation.

Here's another poll

Poll: Majority of Americans favor stricter gun control

By Keating Holland/CNN

April 12, 2000
Web posted at: 6:07 p.m. EDT (2207 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Six in ten Americans believe that laws covering the sale of firearms should be more stringent than they are now, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday.

The latest survey results represent a slight drop from the days immediately following the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, but no change at all from earlier last year -- indicating that the Columbine tragedy has had no lasting effect on Americans' attitudes toward gun control legislation.

Poll results indicate little distinction between parents of young children and adults with no young children -- but there are big differences between men and women.

--------------snip---------------------

<http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/12/poll.guns/>

Let's just quit fighting for sensible gun regulation. Let's quit fighting for gay rights, Let's quit fighting for a woman's right to choose. Let's quit quit fighting for labor unions. Let's quit fighting for civil rights for minorities. Let's just quit being progressive becuase white christian men in red states will be offended. The reality is that all this progun BS on Democratic forums is too marginalize the women, minorities and urban dwellers who are even stronger in their desire for stronger weapons regulation and enforcement.

[enigami]

30. As stated before

polls give the pollster the answer they seek...polls don't mean shit.

[billbuckhead]

32. Every polls biased huh? Your entitled to your own opinion but not your own

facts. Poll after poll after poll shows Americans want stronger gun regulation. I just put up a link with over 20 polls.

[Leilani]

25. I'm in favor of freedom & liberty

& that means the right to bear arms, in our constitution.

[ieoeja]

27. Abortion vs Guns

One thing I've noticed on this board is that when these two topics surface ... the responses tend to overwhelmingly oppose dropping abortion freedom as an issue while almost equally supporting the notion of dropping gun control.

Since that follows my personal belief on both issues, I really like seeing this.

And to stick in a quick anecdote, I grew up in a solidly Democratic region. They remained solidly Democratic through Civil Rights, Vietnam and onward. Then the Assault Weapons Ban was signed into law. Republicans have carried that region in every election since then by a wide margin.

In the intervening time they have learned to back up their position with a whole slew of issues. They have gone from disliking minorities, but thinking they should get a fair shake to disliking minorities and tired of giving them money. They have gone from disliking abortion and thinking it should be kept quiet to disliking abortion and tired of having their taxes pay for them. And so on.

So they talk the talk. But it was AWB that made them walk the walk. Of course, getting them back won't be so easy. AWB made them leave. The Republicans aren't about to do anything to make them leave. Dropping gun control tears down the wall so they can hear our other aguments. Like, the economy?

[enigami]

29. well said

but dropping gun control as a talking point and actually getting back the votes of gun owners are two different things.

Although not one minute of campaign time was devoted to gun control in this past election, just the image of John Kerry with a gun in his hand created a huge backlash ( once everyone recovered from laughing their ass off) in the red states.

I am afraid that Dem's have way overplayed their hand on this issue. It ill take years and much more than talk to change that

[billbuckhead]

36. Why would they laugh? Every American candidate is required to shoot a gun

in the air like a third world dictator.

[slackmaster]

41. John Kerry lost much of the Midwest with his phony duck hunts

I've had several friends and family members in Ohio, Iowa, and other states told me nobody bought his act for a second.

He would have done better by saying "I'm an East Coast liberal Democrat and proud of it, but I recognize and will respect your right to own personal firearms for any lawful purpose."

[Peak_Oil]

51. Good point.

Here's why. You're waiting for the Republicans to frame the debate. The Democrats can take this issue and FRAME THE DEBATE any way we like. Neither party took sides on this one, so nothing happened. If the Dems frame the debate on this issue and run with it in 08 on a platform that explicitly states our position on this, as a proactive stance and not as a reaction to the Republican stance, then we get to decide how it gets talked about.

I'm really not talking about dropping gun control as a talking point. What I'm suggesting is taking an active stance as a positive supporter of firearms owners' rights. No federal AWB, no federal gun registration, no federal whatever. Actively take the stance that it's a local issue. Have the individual senators and HR members take whatever stance they feel will best represent their constituency within their jurisdiction, and point out that whatever they decide to do locally is the will of the local people. It won't affect the hippies in Berkeley if the Texans want a Howitzer in every back yard, and the liberals in NYC can ban ballpoint pens for all I care if I live in OK.

This is a big country with lots of room for disagreement. Let people disagree in this way, and we win the Trifecta.

[Charon]

73. "Good point."

I would agree up to a point. In attacking an enlightened Democratic policy on gun control, the Republicans will point out the very anti gun positions held by current Democratic Legislators such as Senator's
Feinstein, Biden and Shumer. IMO that to frame a realistic position on gun control issues for the Democratic Party, we be able to address the past positions of the Democratic leaderhip. The Republicans certainly will.

[billbuckhead]

31. Pandering to gun nuts only makes Dems look weak to the younger voters

who are even more for gun regulation than their parents. Red state bigots are always going to have a new wedge issue and until we strongly start representing things that we agree with the majority think, why should anyone vote for us. Until liberals start calling thugs like NRA and GOA, thugs, instead of misguided hobbiests, then we deserve our fate.

[enigami]

33. your tendency

to label Everyone who supports gun rights as a "gun nut" or a "bigot" is the attitude that got the democratic party where they are now on this issue.

As demonstrated on this message board there are many here who support individual gun rights, to one degree or another. My point about polls is that any issue can be manipulated by the way a question is posed.

When asked, "Are you in favor of sensible gun control"? people may say yes.....but who decides what the definition of sensible is?

[billbuckhead]

34. These polls ask "Are you in favor of more gun regulation? simple enough?

I didn't call all gun owners gun nuts. You put that shoe on yourself. Red states are more intolerent and more promiscuous about guns, that's reality. The first step in dealing with a problem is to identify it.

[enigami]

37. your last post clearly references GUN NUTS

but that aside, you are correct, this thread isn't about the accuracy or the methodology employed in polling. the problem we are discussing was how to win back some of the gun owner vote

Bill Clinton said himself that he believes that Al Gore lost the 2000 election on the gun control issue.

The democrats believe that also by the evidence that they dropped the issue like a hot potato (not that it did any good)

My only point is that gun control is a loser issue in national elections.

[billbuckhead]

38. We can't call RBKA extremists gun nuts? What a bunch of wussies we become

The Republicans never tone down their rhetoric. Our problem with gun issue is that we tiptoe around it. Al; Francken tells the story of talking to waitress in swing state who said she didn't want the Democrats to win because they would take all the guns. Al then asked her what gun regulations she was for and it turned out she was to the left of the Dem's 2000 platform. If we are too scared to call people who claim to vote against us for the AWB or because the NRA tells them to, then we are too chicken to lead.

[clutchcargo]

76. YOU Cannot LEAD if you never get to the FRONT!!

[sled]

79. A little late, for that

Seems like I remember a little issue called the Iraq War, where the "leadership" went MIA...

[Peak_Oil]

48. I think this is the problem.

Those 80 million citizens are 30% of the population. If they're all gun nuts and bigots, they're a really huge slice of the vote and you've got to find a way into their homes. This is one way.

Another way might be banning legal abortions.

All I'm saying is we should make firearms regulation a local matter. This just doesn't need to be a federal issue. LA, Chicago, NYC... they can all have local ordinances regulating firearms. They can require registration if they're so inclined. But, and this is a big but, we don't need to put this issue in the federal debate. Keep it at the city ordinance level. Decentralize this issue and leave it where it belongs, close to your homes, your schools, your kids. As crazy as this may sound to you, there are families that want their kids skilled in the care and use of firearms. They might be against more firearms regulation.

The Dems can come out on this issue like heroes. Imagine the Dems saying they want to increase personal liberty on BOTH sides of the issue. If you want more gun control locally, then put it in place. If you want less... dismantle it. Put the power directly in the hands of the citizens at the local level.

[sled]

85. Could be

Not necessarily "ban", but decentralize control from DC, & both issues will be safer, in the long run...as long as they're under federal control, they're just one rigged election, or one judge appointment away, from being lost forever...both guns, & abortions...& I'm not anti-choice, on either, I just want some room to breathe, instead of watching this country, so divided.

This isn't good, for anybody...sort of like gambling, make it a local issue, & if you're pro either, you might just be pleasantly surprised...gambling's accessible, to everybody, when the moralists, used to have it banned everywhere, but Nevada.

[slackmaster]

39. Here's another sensible Democratic type policy suggestion

Federal income tax breaks for people who buy safes for storing their guns.

A suitable storage device for guns costs anywhere from about $150 to several thousand dollars, depending on its size, strength, and fire resistance. I paid over $3K for one this year. I decided I could afford it because my gun collection is worth many times that, and I like not having to worry about some dirtbag stealing my guns and using them in crime.

A tax break would make it a little easier for people to do the right thing, and doesn't carry the negative aspect of telling people what to do.

[sled]

80. Good one

Better than whacking a dead...donkey...

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

47. Hit them with their own club

For years the NRA has bashed every Democratic candidate with the slogan "Enforce the gun laws already on the books." Now that the Republicans are in charge -- and with their bias toward deregulation -- Democrats can easily pick up the enforce the laws mantra and use it against the Republicans. What's more, enforcing the current gun laws really would lower crime and decrease things like accidental shootings.

The fact is a lot of Red State hunters are proto-environmentalists. They understand the loss of habitat through suburban sprawl and they don't like having their hunting grounds developed for golf courses and condominiums.

This is a winning issue!

[slackmaster]

50. That's an excellent suggestion!

Democrats can easily pick up the enforce the laws mantra and use it against the Republicans.

I like it!

:toast:

[Peak_Oil]

53. You don't have to think of the NRA as the enemy.

Why not think of them as a potential source of lots of voting leverage? What's so horrible about the NRA?

I have a feeling this is the tail wagging the dog. The NRA is a gun rights group. If you're a member of the party that's trying to ban guns, of course they're going to be against you. When you become the party that seeks more individual liberty for gun owners, guess which way the NRA is going to go?

Take control of the debate, don't simply react to RW talking points. Make up some of your own.

My next stance would be to actively support the right to Freedom of Speech and Assembly by explicily NOT having "free speech zones" and praising journalists who attack Democrats. Take the active position that I disagree with what you've said, but we have a right to freedom of speech here in this country and I'll defend your right to say whatever you want.

For now, though, I'll settle for taking up the banner on gun rights. We need to start winning elections, folks, or it's lights-out for the Dems.

Candidly, the Democratic party isn't the best fit for my personal political opinions. I think the Green party is. But, the Greens aren't really in a position to win anything on the Federal level right now. If the Dems take positions that are losers, then it doesn't make any difference to me anymore which party I cast my vote with. If both the Dems and Greens are going to drown again in 08, I'll vote my conscience and support Cobb.

But, if the Dems decide to do something that could actually win a friggin election then I'm here.

[billbuckhead]

54. If liberals can't see that the NRA is their sworn enemy..................

I guess having an enemies list with half the decent people in the world on it's not enough to see their malice?

[Peak_Oil]

59. Link to enemies list?

I'd like to see it. I'm a member of the NRA and never got a copy.

[billbuckhead]

71. Here's the NRA enemies list link at www.nrablacklist.com

<http://www.nrablacklist.com/>Even the league of womens voters made the list. Confucious said more can be told about a man by his enemies than by one's friends.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

62. What's so horrible about the NRA?

What's wrong with the NRA? They give more than 90% of their money to Republicans -- even supporting Republicans when the Democratic candidate has a decent record on gun rights.

What's wrong with the NRA? The NRA is an industry-advocacy group -- why else would they be trying to shield the gun industry from the reasonable use of product liability lawsuits. Has the AAA ever protected the financial interests of automakers?

What's wrong with the NRA? How about the fact that Grover Norquist -- the bete noir of all things good and decent and Democratic -- is their Executive Vice President.

The NRA isn't going to start supporting Democratic candidates until reasonable gun owners take control of the NRA. But that's a different task altogether.

[blondeatlast]

69. Why no LW NRA?

Listen, I'm no gun fan, but I can be reasonable. I was raised in rural areas, so I'm not "scared" of guns or gun owners, as many suburbanites are.

But gun people on the Left have a serious PR problem--most of us can't see gun policy without seeing the big, ugly, farting elephant called the NRA.

Are you organized? If not, someone ought to do this ASAP.

In the case of the NRA, I think LW gun people need to face facts--the LW membership is going to be severely hard pressed to make any change in policy.

We on the Left take the Greens seriously, if the NRA had competition on the Left, I think there'd be a serious stir.

[rman]

63. meme: "responsible gun ownership"

kindof hard to spin that as "dems want to ban guns".

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

68. Over and over again...

Tell a voter -- "Are you a law-abiding citizen? Then I don't want your gun."

I joke with hunters that I want their gun, but only because it's better than my own. It's more of "greed" thing that a "policy" thing. That always gets a good laugh and they feel a little better.

[elderly man]

55. I agree

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

64. Montana

Here's a good article by Dave Sirota. Link is below

"There aren't too many states in the union redder than Montana. George Bush won the state by more than 20 points in November. The state legislature and governorship in the capital, Helena, have been in GOP hands for 16 years. Sparsely-populated Montana is represented by only one congressman, the far-right Rep. Denny Rehberg, and by two senators, an ultra-conservative Republican (Conrad Burns) and a conservative Democrat (Max Baucus) who often votes with the Republicans. The state's electoral votes are conceded so automatically to the GOP that neither party's candidate campaigns there. Culturally, with the exception of a few rich Hollywood types who weekend in places like Big Sky, the state could hardly be further from the metro-cosmopolitan culture of the coasts. To give but one example, Montana has the highest percentage of hunters of any state in the union.

"But in November, a Democrat, Brian Schweitzer, won the state's race for governor. Schweitzer not only won, but he also won decisively, beating his opponent Bob Brown, the Republican secretary of state and a two-decade fixture in Montana politics, by a solid four points. His victory was so resounding and provided down-ballot party members such strong coattails that Montana Democrats took the state senate and four of five statewide offices."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.sirota.html

Food for thought, ya'll

[sled]

89. That's it

It's right down the line, if the Dems ever want to win the mountain states, & probably the south, too, that's the way to do it, & it's not selling out, either. These folks realize, like everybody else, that multinational corporations have seized control, of both parties, & have bought our government, outright. Provide them with some candidates, who aren't bought & paid for, by special interests, & you'll be way ahead of the game.

Gun rights, individual liberites, & smaller federal government, trumps Falwell, Robertson, Limpbaugh, & Hannity, any day of the week.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

93. Funny thing about the gun control debate

The anti-gun people are always talking about how its an issue of crime and public safety, yet the people who are demographically most likely to fall victim to gun violence are inner city minorities, and they aren't exactly making this a big issue. On both sides, it's white suburbanites who are the least effected by gun crime who are doing all the yelling.

[sled]

94. I think you're on to something

I think the answer, to the problem facing the Democrat party, lies in that article you posted, about Montana, & how Mr. Schweitzer was able to build a coalition, from both sides of the aisle, & win his state.

I'm a big believer in Jefferson, a man ahead of his time, & if the Democrats are still the party of Jefferson, I believe it would behoove them to return to their roots. Instead of attempting to parse Jefferson's words, picking the parts that bolster ones own beliefs, accept his message, as a whole. Democrats would be, so far ahead of the game, in my opinion, if they would just ask themselves the simple question, "What would Jefferson do?", & they would find the answers, in Jefferson's own words.

To me, ignorant as I may be, the roadmap to success lies right in front of our eyes, in what Jefferson left us, & not in what people try to tell us, Jefferson meant to say. I think you'll find a common thread, throughout Jefferson, Paine, & a number of the Founders, which allowed them to form this "more perfect union", & the coalition this party & country needs, if it intends to survive.

I won't even try to answer the question, or explain, what I think, Jefferson would do, but I do think it'll lead the party, in the direction it needs to go, to a new "age of reason", & the common bond, that makes Americans a little different. The more things change, the more they stay the same...Jefferson's gift, to us. Revolutionary ideas, indeed.

[mattclearing]

67. I'd be shocked to find out that we don't already get 10% of gun owners.

eom

[Bridget Burke]

72. I agree. Not all gun owners are gun nuts.

And I refuse to believe that so many of them allow fantasies of the Democrats taking all their guns to force them to vote against their best interests.

[proud_Kucitizen]

88. My dad

a hunter and democrat his whole life switched to Republican because and only because of the gun issue.

[jarab]

70. It couldn't happen overnight ....

but we do need to hunt down a number of those gun owners for our side, especially those many whose politics are already on our side EXCEPT for the single issue of democratic gun control policies. Single issue (gun) voters are likely in the millions, though likely not enough to recover enough votes to win a federal election .... but that election would be much closer than the last one, imo.
It is an important issue (personal liberty) the Democrats must confront.
...O...

[clutchcargo]

74. UNFORTUNATELY--Based on most of the post I have READ

our group would rather lose than change any opinion NO MATTER how detrimental to us it is!!!

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[ieoeja]

83. He said that?!?

"but a month or so later YOUR CANDIDATE went on TV and said only criminals used AK-47s"


Can you find a link?

[latteromden]

92. Wait, the message got deleted. Who was the subject of the quote? (n/t)

[proud patriot]

81. I totally agree

We stand for personal freedom
They stand for corporateGovernment freedom over
individual Citizens'

[Liberty Belle]

86. Convince Reps that our dictator may take away guns next

Fascists don't want an armed populace that could easily rebel.

[proud_Kucitizen]

87. Anyone seen "Bowling for Columbine"

it compares American gun laws and violence to that of Canada. In Canada there is a high percentage of gun owners yet very little violence so it looks like its not the gun ownership that causes violence.

According to Michael Moore it is the constant fear mongering by our main stream media that is the main difference between gun violence in the U.S. and the lack of gun violence in Canada.

So if its violence we hope to curb, it looks like we are barking up the wrong tree by insisting that gun control is the answer.

[latteromden]

91. Are we falling into the same trap the Republicans are falling into with

abortion?

I suppose it just occured to me, but abortion rates tend to go UP in countries with restrictive abortion laws. Do gun rates go UP in countries with restrictive gun laws? "Both Norway and Finland have more relaxed gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership than Sweden." Crime is higher in Sweden. In Norway, they have a high rate of gun ownership, but also laws dealing with gun registration, and a low crime rate.

VERY interesting stuff here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds39.html

[latteromden]

90. I think it's ridiculously hypocritical for us to say "We'll protect the

1st Amendment with our LIVES, but the 2nd? Oh, yeah, that one. Screw that."

Granted, it's a disgrace that the right to bear arms is guarenteed in the US Constitution and the right to vote is NOT. However, it IS in the Constitution. Citizens have the right to bear arms, and unless we repeal the 2nd Amendment, that's that. Not to say, however, that we have to go the right-wing-Dick Cheney-style way and promote guns for terrorists. You can have sensible gun registration laws and background checks, safety training and such and still uphold the Bill of Rights.

The gun control issue is a LOSER for Democrats. We're on the WRONG side. You can keep people safe without banning guns - however, we can't reduce our arguments to "Well, someone will always have a gun illegally, anyway." That DOESN'T work. It's not a question of whether or not someone will use one if they really want to, it's about the right to own a gun as laid out in the Constitution of the United States.

[moggie12]

95. Guns not the problem

I really don't think the '04 election was decided on the gun issue. I think it was because Kerry truly did seem pretty wishy-washy. One exit poll showed 56% of voters agreed with the statement, "Kerry says what he thinks people want to hear, rather than what he really thinks". I think that's why a lot of those wavering, last-minute voters we were expecting to flock to Kerry in droves got cold feet. That whole "character" thing holds a lot of sway with voters in Presidential elections. Especially this time since Karl framed the campaign as "strong, steadfast" vs. "flip-flopper".