How can Dems win the Senate, HR, and Presidency? Guns!

[Peak_Oil]

Here's what we need to do. We need to tighten our shorts and take a stand on the 2nd amendment. We need to do away with the evil/stupid assault weapons ban FOR GOOD and actively support the rights of firearms owners to keep and bear arms.

There is no good reason that a gun with an 11 round magazine should be more illegal than a gun with a 10 round magazine.

If the D's do this, we win the next round of elections. Period. 80 million gun owners in the US. 10% of 80 million is 8 million votes. That's all we need!

Do some research on the web about libertarian gun owners. There's plenty of them. Bring them in to the Democratic party, and we can get the PNAC out of power!

Swing 10% of gun owners this way and we win the Presidency, Senate, and HR. Did you like the latest bankruptcy legislation that would make credit card debt undischargeable under Chapter 11? Do you like the current debate over the privatization of Social Security? Do you like war and death? Hey, then fuck it! Let's keep 11-round magazines illegal, and screw up every other thing that politics can affect!

This one single plank of the Democratic party is useless, stupid, and should be taken out immediately. Email your Senators, Representatives, and any local officers you can find. Tell them that you want the right to keep and bear arms, and you want to bring others into the Democratic party by assuring them that their rights will not be abridged.

This is the key!

Mods, please don't bump this down to the Gungeon. This is a discussion that should be had by the majority of Democrats. It's important!

[BrklynLiberal]

1. I thought you were going to say we should shoot the Repukes.

[MisterLiberal]

36. No way

There's no way we should back down on our platform. This is just what the Repukes want.

Why don't we become more public and force THEM on the defense to back down off THEIR issues?

We can't win by giving up our platform. Every time we sell a piece of our soul, we have already lost.

[MisterLiberal]

41. !

Unless you think we're WRONG then DON'T BACK DOWN ON YOUR PRINCIPLES!

If you believe we're right (AND WE ARE!), how dare you ask others to back down?

[Billy Ruffian]

80. Nope,

We're wrong on this issue. If we stood up and said we're wrong, and that we're fixing our platform to support the rights of gun owners, instead of placing more and more restrictions on them, then we'd get back millions of voters who don't care for the Rs, but felt attacked by our gun grabbing "leadership"

It's not backing down on principles, it's standing up for them. We are the party of individual rights and liberties. The gun issue is one where we SHOULD be for individual rights and liberties.

It shouldn't be compromise, it shouldn't be a stealthy move to try to fool voters back into our ranks, it should be a loud and clear statement that we support individual ownership of firearms.

[Borgnine]

65. That actually made me laugh out loud. n/t

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

81. No. But's it's a good fall-back position!

[lenidog]

2. I know of another Dem who has the same thought

James Carville said it was the one plank of the Dem party that does far more damage than good and should be discarded. For the Reps he stated that it was abortion.

[Guaranteed]

54. Those are the two things he's actually right about, at

this point.

[MisterLiberal]

61. I tell you what

We've spent the last five or six Presidential elections compromising. With the fluke of Perot in 92 and Clinton being incumbent in 96, we've lost every time.

Why not try ONE TIME to stand for what we SAY we do?

What's our platform if it's not what we SAY we stand for?

If we can't even stand for what we say we do, WHAT PURPOSE DOES THIS PARTY SERVE?

[Clarkie1]

3. Actually, if the assault weapons ban allows guns with 10 rounds....

that's just insane. Even more insane than the argument that the 2nd ammendment gives every American the right to own any kind of firearm. What do you want, M-16 assault weapons on our streets?

No other "civilized" country in the world allows such insanity.

[Peak_Oil]

4. You are the problem.

I don't know if you noticed, but the D's lost the Trifecta. Presidency, Senate, and HR. Why?

Ask yourself why we lost everything, and are now crying on the sidelines. Because that's where we are. We're crying, and we're on the sidelines.

It's because of the AWB, and probably nothing more than that.

Eleven round magazines instead of 10 round magazines. That's it. Same power behind the round, same destructive killing force, just 11 instead of 10. That's it.

80 million gun owners. 10% of them add up to 8 million votes, and that's enough to swing the entire balance of power to the Democratic party.

You like having abortion legal?
You like having solid social security?
You like having fewer foreign wars that kill your children?
You like not having the PNAC running our foreign policy?

You might think about the value of having these four benefits vs having 11 round magazines illegal.

Weigh your options. Don't throw our democracy away over half an inch of magazine length.

[Clarkie1]

9. would 100 round magazines also be legal? Rocket propelled grenades?

Just wondering for the sake of arguement...

We can win the gun owners with the right candidate, without compromising sane gun policy.

[DaveinMD]

10. this isn't an issue we can win

I'd rather win so we can address the economic inequities in our system that really create violent crime. One size fits all gun policies have been bad for our party. A different standard for Vermont and NY makes enough sense to me.

[MisterLiberal]

40. Ok

Then when the anti-women come on here and ask us to "revise" our stance on abortion, I guess that's okay, too?

Oh and don't forget the warmongers.

Gotta fight the world to keep Shrubbie in power, you know.

THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!

[DaveinMD]

63. and again

Choice is a core issue. Gun control is not a core issue. In fact, many great Democrats are not anti gun. Howard Dean for instance.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

84. Gun Control isn't a Red vs. Blue issue

It's a convenient wedge issues that the Republicans are using to pry off rural, but otherwise populist, voters from the Democratic Party. It's foolish for us to allow this to continue. I'm a Democrat. Have been all my life. I'm also a gun owner and a hunter. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I do most of my hunting deep in the reddest part of the red states and I know folks there don't trust big corporations and hate insurance companies. They don't like Bush's tax cuts and they're beginning to question the whole War on Terrorism. We can win these people to our side if we adopt common sense on gun control

Common Sense? Enforce the laws already on the books! We know that the Bush Administration has slashed federal block grants for law enforcement. We know that he's cut funding to monitor the activities of federally-licensed gun dealers. We know that his Justice Department wouldn't turn over files on gun purchases to the FBI after 9/11 to check for terrorist activities. We can beat him half senseless on these issues without alienating legitimate sportsmen.

[MisterLiberal]

42. I can prove my point

I can prove my point quite easily.

Would you or would you not want the Repukes to alter THEIR platform to match OURS?

YES YOU WOULD!

Why? Because even if a Repuke gets elected, they're doing what WE WANT THEM TO DO!

So why on Earth would anyone want us to adopt the Repuke platform?

IT BENEFITS THEM!!!!

[DaveinMD]

62. gun control isn't a core issue

its a much more recent issue. FDR and Kennedy never ran on this issue. It doesn't affect economic injustice, civil rights, civil liberties, social security, health care and other more vital issues.

[slackmaster]

17. 100-round magazines ARE legal, RPGs are tightly regulated

If you really want a rocket-propelled grenade you can get one in most states, just as you can buy a machine gun. It's been that way for a long time.

Please learn about what laws are in place now before you show more of your ignorance.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/

[Guaranteed]

58. No explosives.

Assault-weapons, yes. Fully automatic. Yes.

No artillery. No explosives. No extremely high-caliber weapons you can shoot down airliners with. No missiles or bazookas. And ABSOLUTELY NO CCW.

But we have to show these folks that we're willing to stand up for protecting our country from the grassroots up.

[Billy Ruffian]

82. Why no CCW?

In the states that have 'shall-issue' CCW, have there been problems with CCW permit holders going on rampages?

And in your 'extremely high-caliber weapons' category, do you think it's very possible to shoot down an airliner with one? You think it's possible to shoot down a fast moving object with a bullet or two?

WWII aircraft carried several of these weapons, in full auto, and would take dozens and dozens of rounds to bring down another aircraft, when they were able to hit them. (think head on or chasing shots)

The .50 BMG (which is probably what you're referring to) is a very expensive, very large weapon. If someone wants to own one, and has the money to buy ammunition and a place to shoot it, there is NO harm to you.

[old freak]

117. More restrictive gun laws

Means we will continue to loose.

[MisterLiberal]

37. Pardon me

But someone who is Anti-Abortion, or pro-war can make the same points you did, and have on this very board.

We need to stop looking at what we can ditch and COMMUNICATE OUR IDEAS BETTER!

Don't throw away our party to become Repukes light.

[MisterLiberal]

39. Matter of fact,

I just realized how angry I get when people who call themselves Democrats come on here and offer to "help us" by becoming Repuke Lite.

THAT'S JUST WHAT THE REPUKES WANT!

For us NOT to counter them on issues, like the crazy idea that Americans should have automatic weapons.

They WANT US to weaken our own platform!!!!

Guess what? If we keep doing that, then THEY WILL WIN EVEN IF WE GET IN OFFICE because our guys will be spouting THEIR PLATFORM.

We don't need more compromise! We need people like Barbara Boxer who is not afraid to stand up and make a statement!

MAKE THE REPUKES COMPROMISE!

We need to make a stand and if you won't stand with us, at least be quiet! THIS IS OUR PARTY!

[slackmaster]

15. You are clearly misinformed, Clarkie1

The M16 rifle is not an "assault weapon", it's legally classified as a machinegun because it is capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull.

Expiration of the stupid "AW" ban did not make it any easier to buy automatic weapons. All it did was allow semiautomatic firearms to be configured in ways that were permitted before 1994, and magazines that hold 11 or more rounds to once again be manufactured. The latter is really irrelevant because of the large number of military surplus magazines that were already in circulation when the "ban" was enacted.

Even more insane than the argument that the 2nd ammendment gives every American the right to own any kind of firearm.

Funny, I don't see anyone here making that argument. Just who are you directing that comment toward?

Gun bans are dangerous ground for politicians. Remember this: The "AW" ban barely passed in 1994 when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. That November we lost control of Congress. It's not a coincidence.

The ban did nothing for public safety. I and millions of other Americans were glad to see it die.

[sendero]

64. The problem with your point...

... is you assume that because a certain gun is not legal that a criminal gives a rats ass.

People who want banned guns have no problem getting them, just like folks who want pot or pills or whatever have no problem getting them.

You cannot enforce a ban on things that people want and that are essentially nobody's business.

Gun rights are a deal killer for Dems and the piddling restrictions that we have managed to get do little.

I'm for background checks and that is it. If you are a law abiding citizen you should be able to buy just about any gun you want. The Reps have been wedge-issuing us on this long enough. I'd rather save my bullets (pun intended) for more important things like economic justice, reproductive rights, and civil rights in general.

[DaveinMD]

5. I'm pro gun control

but I truly believe that this is not an issue that should be addressed by the party on the national level. This is an issue that should be addressed on a state by state basis. Michigan is different than NY. Maryland is different than Virginia. Let the states decide this one. Its a losing issue on the national level. Get rid of the issue and let's let the gun owners vote their pocketbook.

[old freak]

121. Setting up for another let down

Within the past few months, state government in California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Maryland, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois have proposed some very harsh gun control measures.

I'm afraid that we're going in reverse and another loss in in the future.

[Dr Fate]

6. We need to support gun control.

Most voters are for at least some form of it- including me.

Strategy-wise,we should de-emphasize any discussion of it what-so-ever.

[DaveinMD]

8. people favor it generally

but the people who vote on guns oppose gun control. Its a losing issue.

[Dr Fate]

11. And they will vote Repub and their children will vote Repub.

It's a losing issue with a handful of absolutists- but most people and voters are for restricting combat machine guns.

It's a losing issue alright- one way or the other- thats why I said we should just ignore it as an issue.

[DaveinMD]

12. and I agree

let's win by returning to economic populism so the gun owning working class folks will return to our party.

[MisterLiberal]

44. Hmmm

That's the ONLY form of compromise I would be for; ignoring it in the platform "officially" but making sure that our candidates are for sane control of handguns.

[slackmaster]

48. That would set us up for being accused of hypocrisy and lies

No go.

[MisterLiberal]

52. Wow

If the Repukes played fair like that, we'd already have all three branches but the cold, hard facts is that they DON'T play fair.

If we bring a knife to a gunfight, we deserve to lose.

No pun intended. LOL!

[davepc]

120. "Combat Machine Guns"

have been restiricted since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

[MisterLiberal]

43. wow

People who are anti-choice vote against abortion laws; should the Democratic platform appease them, too?

People who are warmongers vote for whatever war Shrubbie wants; should we appease those people too?

Can you guarantee me that the Dems switching on this one issue will give us the WH, Congress and SC again?

If not, then go away.

If so, you are asking us to sell our soul.

[slackmaster]

47. Think of it as being pro-choice on guns

...you are asking us to sell our soul.

I'm asking only that you respect my right to choose to own guns. I will respect your right to not own them, even to not allow them in your home.

[MisterLiberal]

49. That's the first step

But then the anti-women come in and ask to "respect fetal tissue" and then bigots come in and ask us to "respect the white culture".

Maybe you don't feel strongly on this issue, but think of an issue that you DO feel strongly about then let someone ask you to change our platform to match the Repukes!

What would you say at that point?

And worse, ignoring or leaving this all the repukes way only further strengthens third parties who are brave enough to stand on principle.

It doesn't strengthen us; it shows us as a "me, too" party that follows instead of leads.

[DaveinMD]

67. is Howard Dean selling us out

because he's been backed by the NRA quite often in his career.

[slackmaster]

74. Your position is pro-choice on one thing and anti-choice on another

Maybe you don't feel strongly on this issue, but think of an issue that you DO feel strongly about then let someone ask you to change our platform to match the Repukes!

What would you say at that point?

I'm not asking for the Democratic Party platform to match the Republican platform on anything. I'm saying the Democratic Party should enshrine personal freedom as it seemed to be doing when I joined it in 1976.

I'm pro-choice on everything as much as possible, MisterLiberal. Being concerned that something you believe in might happen to match something your perceived enemies believe in makes no logical sense. Just about everybody likes beer, MisterLiberal. That doesn't make us all Nazis.

[DaveinMD]

66. gun control isn't a core issue

ecomomic opportunity and justice, civil rights, civil liberties, access to health care, social security, reproductive freedom, helping the poor. These are the core issues of the party. Gun control was never on the list. Why should it be treated as such. Do you think Howard Dean is selling us out. He doesn't believe in more gun control.

[Guaranteed]

57. De-emphasize it? It's the one thing that all these freaking DLC

clowns actually seem to stand up for!

It's ridiculous!

Forget it, man. The whole thing. We have to support the 2nd Amendment. It's part of the dick-measuring contest.

And, yeah, that sounds sarcastic, but I'm serious.

[Dr Fate]

71. Neither side brought it up much in the 2004 election...

...that is all I'm saying- we should focus on other issues that people care more about...

I'm not saying we "flip flop" either-but let the Republicans be the guys who talk about guns all the time-most voters dont care for all the tons-o-guns talk.

[DaveinMD]

92. the NRA

ran a direct mail campaign highlighting Kerry's gun control record. It was very extensive.

[cestpaspossible]

7. Bang

[Peter1x9]

13. I'm opposed to any gun control law

The only thing gun control laws accomplish is to keep guns away from the actual law-abiding people. The bad guys can and do go out and get guns regardless of the laws, leaving everyone else unarmed and easy targets to thieves, carjackers, home invaders, etc.

[DaveinMD]

14. I think this is untrue

but I'm done fighting about it because its a losing issue and there are more important issues to worry about. Like poverty, economic justice, war and peace, health care, social security, reproductive freedom, civil rights and so on.

[meow2u3]

30. Tie gun rights/hunting to the environment

Hunters need to know that when Republicans trash the environment, they also trash their hunting grounds. When hunting grounds are destroyed, so are the game they hunt. So what's the use of owning a gun when there will be nowhere to use them except on each other?

[chicagojoe]

50. Why does the phrase "gun control" mean government

gun confiscation to so many people? Ask any cop, whose opinion on firearms matters MORE than anyone elses on this subject, what the police say on this. The answer will be---gun control.
Responsible, intelligent gun owners know damn well that this isn't about their guns. This is about keeping the guns away from the wrong people.

[slackmaster]

16. I think you're focused too closely on one small issue

What Democrats really need to embrace is personal freedom in all matters. I oppose gun bans for exactly the same reason I oppose bans on abortion and favor drug legalization. It's all the same issue to me - Government control over individual choices vs. liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[GOPBasher]

18. Well I agree, but

the gun issue is different. If guns get in the hands of criminals, there will be innocent victims involved. So that's different that those other issues, where it's just one individual involved. Having said that, guns is an issue I would gladly concede in order to win some elections.

[slackmaster]

21. The other way to solve that is to keep criminals away from guns

Put violent predatory people in jail and keep them there. We currently have good laws that prohibit felons, mentally incompetent people, and others from having guns now. Those laws are not being enforced effectively.

So that's different that those other issues, where it's just one individual involved.

My gun collection affects nobody but me. There would be no societal benefit to taking guns away from responsible owners.

Having said that, guns is an issue I would gladly concede in order to win some elections.

Thank you for taking a rational point of view on the subject.

[MisterLiberal]

45. :(

Souls shouldn't be this cheap

[GOPBasher]

78. My soul isn't "cheap."

I live in a democracy, and I'm well aware that in such a system of government, one must *always* compromise. The only way to get what you want 100% of the time is to live in a fascist dictatorship, and one in which you're the dictator. Otherwise, you have to compromise some things; you can't get the majority of people to agree with you on 100% of the issues.

If a candidate agrees with me on 90% of the issues, and that candidate can get broad majority support, then I'm behind him or her 100%.

[Guaranteed]

55. Yeah, absolutely.

It's about civil liberties.

[meow2u3]

19. With the Bush criminals in power....

we'll need those guns to protect ourselves--and democracy and freedom themselves--from them! We're only fighting crime and criminals acting above the law the only way remaining
What are we supposed to do? Let them rob, rape, and murder us?

[GOPBasher]

20. Well, I'm personally for gun control, but if it would help us, I'd concede

that issue. I think that's one issue I would concede in order to win. To me, it's an issue of secondary importance. I do, however, think that gun control is a good idea, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Gun control doesn't affect law-abiding citizens; it doesn't take their guns away, as the NRA would have everyone think.

[mattclearing]

22. Evil/Stupid Assault Weapons ban?

Real stupid. I can walk around the neighborhood without hearing gunfire.

You can't be a city dweller.

And the number of libertarian gun issue voters we will peel from the fringe is nothing compared to what we will lose in city voters.

And evil? Asking that fully automatic weapons not be available for hunting?

I understand that people are afraid of their government and may want to defend themselves from tyranny.

But really, no automatic rifle will save you if the Feds decide to go Waco on your ass.

An unrelated note: The mere fact that our incompetent leaders are freaking out over Peak Oil doesn't mean you have to.

After the dust settles and the last drops of oil are squeezed from the earth, people will find something else to squabble over, once they have covered their roofs with solar panels and wind mills.

A word of advice: Relax, do your thing, make a difference where you can, and hope for the best.

[slackmaster]

23. Please learn about the subject before forming an opinion

Asking that fully automatic weapons not be available for hunting?... ...But really, no automatic rifle will save you if the Feds decide to go Waco on your ass.

Nobody here is suggesting either of those. The "assault weapons" "ban" had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with fully automatic weapons.

Here is a good site for information - http://www.awbansunset.com/awbguide.html - It's a pro-gun site, so if that bothers you please refer to the portion of the United States Code that contains the actual definitions of the now-defunct ban, as well as the laws covering fully automatic firearms.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_44.html

Go into Section 921 and search for the words "assault weapon" and "machinegun". You will see that the definitions are mutually exclusive. Assault weapons were semiautomatic only. Expiration of the ban last September had ZERO effect on the availability of automatic firearms.

[mattclearing]

24. Then what is the big deal? n/t

[slackmaster]

25. Some of us celebrate the demise of a pointless, unjust law

It's really not that big of a deal.

A lot of intelligent, well-meaning people like you were duped into believing the "AW" ban was the only thing preventing folks from walking into Wal-Mart and buying an automatic weapon. Some even believe the expiration of the AWB meant the end of the Brady background checks.

Laws that restrict personal choice and liberty with no benefit in return are inherently bad. The only good thing about the AWB was its sunset clause. That should serve as a model for all other attempts to make society safer by restricting freedom.

The AWB was especially bad for us Democrats. Many of us believe it was one of several factors that led to us losing control of Congress.

[mattclearing]

27. Got it.

I believed in it too. If it was really a bs compromise that accomplished very little of value, I'm not too concerned.

But I'm still waiting for Peak Oil to re-emerge from the bunker and justify using the word, "evil."

[cattleman22]

103. AWB had nothing to do with automatic weapons at all.

Your post simply shows how you have been misled by gun control groups.

[Al-CIAda]

26. AGREE 100%-defend ALL the Bill of Rights!

Dean is an NRA member...We also should take a strong stand on illegal immigration.

These two issues along w/ fiscal responsibility and non-interventionalist policy could garner all the disillusioned 'conservatives'.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. The guns in the AWB are proven cop-killer weapons an have no...

Legitimate hunting purposes.

[slackmaster]

32. Hunting isn't the only reason for gun ownership

Some of the rifles that were affected by the AWB are very popular with target shooters. People do hunt with them too. An AR-15 or semiautomatic AK is powerful enough for pigs or coyotes, and underpowered for most deer.

The AWB affected some of the 50+ year old firearms in my collection.

Police get killed with all kinds of firearms. If you think certain ones are "proven cop-killer weapons" please provide some proof other than the Brady Campaign or Violence Policy Center's hyperbolic propaganda.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Fair enough, you have a point...

Personally I would be much more in favor of regional gun control policies. There is obviously more need for gun control in urban areas than there are in rural areas and there is more use for guns in rural areas than urban areas.

The problem is that the states and local governments don't pass gun control laws and so it can become necessary for the federal government to do so.

You also make a point that the AWB is quite flawed and I have a feeling that it was the compromise on what was able to be passed in 1994, much like most other things that Clinton did. Nonetheless, there are guns that statistically turn up more frequently in crimes than other. This has to do with all sorts of things, mostly the fact that they tend to be inexpensive. I would like to see a gun bill where senators and congressmen actually sit down and work out a bill that does ban these weapons without loopholes but doesn't effect weapons like the 50+ year old ones that you describe. The trouble is that like everything else in Washington, it all blows up when special interests get involved.

[cheezus]

29. Guns are for pussies

[Lorien]

88. I agree

I'm not afraid that the scary dark skinned man is gonna git me, nor am I delusional enough to think that I could take on the US government with my own personal arsenal. I don't like killing defenseless animals for "sport", and since I'm not a man, I have no use for a penis extension.

Two friends lost their kids to firearms in the home. Pro-gun control, all the way.

[slackmaster]

90. Meow!

Two friends lost their kids to firearms in the home.

No doubt because some DUMBASS adults failed to properly secure weapons.

Pro-gun control, all the way.

I'm pro-choice on guns, all the way.

[mrgorth]

31. Maybe we should provide guns at birth

or would that not be enough?

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[IronLionZion]

34. Chairman Dean supports gun rights

he has something like 8 A ratings from the NRA. Because Democrats should be for sensible gun laws only, and it is a local issue.

People who are for the "Assault Weapons Ban" have no idea what it is. The gun nuts against "gun control" also have no clue. Either way, it's a bullshit wedge issue used only to rally each side's base during election years.

[dolstein]

38. That's a myth

He got an A rating from the NRA simply because Vermont didn't pass any gun laws on his watch. I'm not aware of a single federal gun control law whose repeal Dean supports -- and that included the ban on assault weapons. Moreover, Dean opposed the NRA's efforts to enact federal legislation effectively immunizing gun dealers and manufacturers from liability relating to the use of firearms.

[DaveinMD]

68. Dean is pro gun

as are most politicians in the progressive state of Vermont.

[IronLionZion]

73. that's true and he supports gun rights

it's hard for some people to understand that.

He doesn't think we need any more federal gun laws cause we have enough. States and local governments can have more if they want. He's from a rural state and most Vermonters support gun rights. Plus he kept speaking about this when he ran for president. I supported him and voted for him in the primaries.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Let's ensure it by outlawing abortion and teaching creationism.

We could also start waving the flag and demanding that we nuke the ay-rabs.

Gosh, there are a whole bunch of "unpopular" liberal stances we could abandon to guarantee "electability".

Pandering to the right is soooooo effective.

[chicagojoe]

46. I've always been a gun owner,

and I've always been an advocate of PROGRESSIVE gun legislation. I would NEVER join the NRA. Responsible gun owners should have no problem with better regulation of firearms in America. The problem is, they never seem to notice that part of the 2nd Amendment which tells us we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. They always stop after "right to bear arms".

[LilBitRad]

56. Like you, I've always owned guns

so, this is a dicey issue for me.

I think, as do most of my friends, this issue has had plenty of impact on the way many voters view the Democratic party.

The pubs I can talk to become single issue voters when it comes to gun legislation.

[Guaranteed]

60. Yeah, it makes us look weak. nt

[LilBitRad]

77. I don't know about weak, but maybe not practical.

I can only think of it based on my own life experiences.
My family was poor, and in my teen years the only meat that hit the table was what my 30-30, my .410 or my little monkey wards (that dates me) .22 could bring down.
My parents were very staunch Democrats till the day they died, but I'll guarantee, my dad, an avid hunter until he was crippled when I was 11, would have been in a rage at the thought of gun control.
I know the difference in current gun legislation or proposals, but he would have been inflexible on the issue.
I suspect there are many folks out there like him.
I think the answer is keeping it at the states rights level and not making it a national plank, but that's just an opinion.

[Guaranteed]

59. Just gotta correct your quote a bit....

"the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Billy Ruffian]

79. Re-read the 2nd amendment.

It does NOT say we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia.

It says 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

You should look up William Van Alstyne, Sanford Levinson, and other constitional law professors on what the 2nd amendment means, and whether it's an individual right.

[Cats Against Frist]

51. I'm with you all the way

We take back the second, and to some extent the tenth amendment (say, on taxation) - and we've got all ten of the REAL commandments on our side.

They're going to move to consolidate as much power in the fed as possible -- this dismantling of social programs is a fucking smokescreen -- they only want to dismantle OUR social programs -- they will make the social programs that THEY want to engender their own social engineering. We could really call them out for the fascists and liberty-haters that they are, if we had all ten amendments in the bag.

[Guaranteed]

53. IT'S ABOUT FREAKING TIME SOMEONE SAID THIS.

Jesus.

[maxsolomon]

69. flip flop! yeah, that'll work...

"its waaaaay too late for gun control in america"
-steve earle, live at the BBC

[Zuni]

70. I agree fully

I am for gun rights for law abiding owners

[knight_of_the_star]

75. Rephrase HOW we say it

Make it a states' rights issue and say that it should be left up to the states to handle it, only regulate military hardware for the obvious reasons of public safety, I mean who wants to see organized crime getting their hands on heavy artillery?

[anaxarchos]

76. Agreed... It's an issue like prohibition.

Whatever the merits... It has nothing to do with "republican lite" or going backward on any other issue. It is an issue with a negative constituency, not a positive one. There should not be a platform plank AGAINST gun control.

[John_H]

83. Amen. "Gun Control," aside from making us feel good, is a moot issue

from a real world policy standpoint. There are already enough guns floating around for anyone who wants an illegal gun to have a huge selection. What "gun control" does do is costs us a shitload of union votes and gives close races in "red" areas to rethugs.

[Deep13]

85. Get hunters in the environmental movement.

"Did you like the latest bankruptcy legislation that would make credit card debt undischargeable under Chapter 11?"

Title 11, Chapter 7. (11 U.S.C. 727) Doesn't the Old Testament require that debts be forgiven every seven years?

Anyhow, hunters are our natural allies in the environmental movement because of their connection with outdoors and wild places. Gun control alienates them. Sure it is largely a nonissue in reality, but they feel very strongly about it and are will to vote against their own self-interest because of it. The NRA has these people convinced that liberals are going to come around any day to collect their guns. It is nonsense, but the propoganda works because gun owners believe it.

[MadHound]

86. Yeah, right, that's the ticket

Stop supporting a position, gun control, that the majority of people in this country agree with. Real bright there friend, real bright:eyes:

So I suppose since you are against gun control, then you wouldn't care a whit about your right wingnut neighbor owning a rocket launcher, or a tank for that matter, eh?

Tell you what, why don't you move to my old inncer city neighborhood, where all of those guns that are stolen from scared suburbanite houses wind up shooting up the neighborhood. Give your car, or house, or yourself shot up a few times, especially with an assault weapon. Then come back and tell me how the Democrats should swim against the current of public opinion.

[Deep13]

87. majority in wrong states

"Stop supporting a position, gun control, that the majority of people in this country agree with. Real bright there friend, real bright."

A majority of people in pinkish swing state suburbs do not agree with it. How will gun control add to the states that Gore or Kerry carried? Which R Congressional districts will go D because of support for gun control? Single issue voters have been causing us to loose power for decades.

"So I suppose since you are against gun control, then you wouldn't care a whit about your right wingnut neighbor owning a rocket launcher, or a tank for that matter, eh?"

The sarcasm doesn't help. My rightwingnut neighbors are already armed to the teeth and their lock on state government will prevent that from ever being changed.

Perhaps the people in those inner city neighborhoods might want to show up at the polls once in a while. Cleveland, the most D town in Ohio, had the lowest turnout state wide last year. Right now, they are irrelevant to the issue since it is the suburbanites who ultimately decide who runs the country.

[MadHound]

89. You need to do some more research on this friend

Actually, the majority of people, no matter if they're in red or blue states, support gun control, and apparently support among 'burbanites is strong also<http://www.iansa.org/news/2002/september2002/csgv_pr26902.htm>
<http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0%2C2061%2C571804%2C00.html>

Perhaps you would do well to stop letting the NRA frame this debate, for they will spin reality to fit their own point of view everytime. The support for gun control has been solid for decades now, despite all of the frenzy.

And quite frankly, though it sounds like it, I'm not being sarcastic. If you take away gun control, what is next? SAMS, artillery, etc., and would you be comfortable with it? And if you feel that we need to draw the line, where should that line be drawn and why?

And so you're blaming inner city folks for the Democratic losses now? Again, you show your ignorance as inner city people had the highest turnout rate for this last election than for any other in the past thirty years. And this despite their being disenfranchised, in Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere across the country.

And quite frankly Kerry could have gotten a lot more of the inner city vote if he would have offered these people something to vote for, rather than just voting ABB. You know, something that would really help them, like universal health care, or that their sons and daughters wouldn't have to fight an illegal, immoral war in Iraq.

Sorry friend, but gun control is, and will remain, a winning issue with the majority of Americans. We shouldn't abandon it to chase the chimera of centerist votes.

[slackmaster]

91. Giant Straw Man spotted in DU forum

If you take away gun control, what is next? SAMS, artillery, etc., and would you be comfortable with it? And if you feel that we need to draw the line, where should that line be drawn and why?

Actually the point under discussion here has nothing to do with repealing any of the gun control we have now. The idea is to get out of our tendency to support, knee-jerk style, every new gun control proposal that comes up.

[MadHound]

96. Gee, judging from the OP

And other posts on this thread, it looks like there are people here who are indeed advocating doing away with all gun control. Take the time to read what I'm responding to, then you will get the point.

[slackmaster]

99. Give me one example of where someone advocates reducing restrictions

People (including myself) have expressed support for the expiration of the "Assault Weapons" ban, but that's a done deal.

[MadHound]

102. Well, let's see here

The OP is mentioning that we should lure in the Libertarians on this issue, and Libertarians DO believe in the abolusion of all weapons controls. You yourself stated a pretty libertarian POV by stating that you're pro-choice on this issue, and then you should really go back up thread and check out post thirteen, among others.

[slackmaster]

104. OK

I'll give you half credit. The position expressed in reply #13 is an extreme one, certainly I don't agree with it at face value. It does not specifically advocate repealing anything, but you could reasonably interpret it as implying so.

On the other end of the spectrum we occasionally see people here advocating for blanket gun bans. Either extreme is a bad place to go.

[MadHound]

107. I'm not advocating a complete ban on guns

I own a few long rifles myself. But I do draw the line at unpractical guns that are of no use other than killing lots of people quickly. I have no problem with hunting guns, etc. But a full out free for all, no. Like the majority of people in this country, I think there should be reasonable controls, for I have seen what the damage guns do to an otherwise nice neighborhood.

[slackmaster]

109. I'll ask you once again, please be specific about what you would ban

I'm certainly willing to read and consider what you believe.

[MadHound]

113. Let's see here

I would like to see all CCW done away with. Assault weapons, since they are of such little practical value, and excepting certain circumstances, handguns would have to go. After all, stats show that a handgun is more likely to wind up shooting the owner than an attacker.

[slackmaster]

116. You are surely entitled to your personal opinions, but facts help

I would like to see all CCW done away with.

Do you mean shall-issue or Right-To-Carry laws, or all concealed weapons? Either way, why? It hasn't caused any harm to society where it's been implemented.

If giving people additional choices causes no harm, would that not be a good thing for a free society? :shrug:

Are you just uncomfortable with the idea of people carrying weapons?

Assault weapons, since they are of such little practical value...

Too vague and not supported by fact. Some definitions of "assault weapon" like California's cover rifles used in competitive target shooting. I think some rifles that some people consider assault weapons are VERY practical for recreational target shooting and even hunting.

What, SPECIFICALLY do YOU mean by "assault weapon"? And why should your inability to see a practical value for something be a factor in determining what someone else should be able to buy?

Are you just uncomfortable with people having weapons that you think are scary?

...excepting certain circumstances, handguns would have to go. After all, stats show that a handgun is more likely to wind up shooting the owner than an attacker.

Body Count Fallacy. Defensive use of a handgun usually does not require firing it. Most handguns are never used for defensive purposes. I collect them, and they sit clean and unused in a big sturdy safe. Would a gun collection be a valid reason for having one?

Are you just uncomfortable with people owning handguns because they want to?

Your position seems more extreme than that of anyone who ran for President in 2000 or 2004. Why would a position that alienates MORE people than one that failed us be any better for the party?

[DaveinMD]

93. a majority support gun control, but and its a big but

that majority doesn't vote based on the issue. The pro gun folks are single issue voters. It kills us in rural areas. We should make an economic populist argument and drop the gun issue. I'm pretty sure we'd win.

[slackmaster]

94. Sounds right to me

The calculus is plain as day - Express open-ended support for gun control measures and you FOR SURE alienate a certain group of voters. There is no chance they will vote Democratic.

Drop the subject entirely, and who do you alienate? Maybe a few gun control extremists, but what are they going to do about it? Vote GOP or Libertarian? Not a chance.

[MadHound]

114. Nope, those people will do one of two things

Both which have hurt the Dems already. They will either stop voting altogether, which is what has been happening for the past thirty years, and is absolutely killing the party. Or they will do as I am, going Green, and working towards building up a party that is truly representative of the will of the people.

I've worked in politics for the past thirty years, and it is this type of continual compromise, this ever rightward swing of the Dems that has caused our downfall. Peoples' attitude is that there is little or no difference between the parties, so why should they bother. If we give them a real difference, a real reason to vote for the Dems, they will. If we simply continue to chase the chimera of the center, then the Dems are doomed to continual failure. It is as simple as that.

[slackmaster]

118. To me the issue is not right vs. left or liberal vs. conservative

Any of the above positions taken to an extreme becomes indistinguishable from any of the others.

A left jack boot up your ass doesn't feel any better than a right jack boot up your ass. Extreme liberalism leads to a strong government pushing a particular social agenda onto people just as surely as does extreme conservatism. The agendas may be completely different but the force is the same.

I'm staying within the party and pushing for a return to our libertarian (lower case 'l') roots. I respect what the Greens stand for and even toyed with the idea of becoming one because environment has always been one of my top issues, especially in local politics.

Good luck to you. It's unfortunate that we see so little common ground on the gun topics, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on some matters.

[MadHound]

97. And by dropping the gun issue

You consign an entire swath of the inner city population in this country to an ever increasing cycle of violence and death. Where the hell do you think those guns come from? They're certainly not bought from the store, they're ripped off from scared 'burbanites and country folks. Then they make their way to places like my old neighborhood, being used to wound and kill innocents.


And quite frankly those who are voting solely on one issue aren't going to be voting Dem anyway for the most part, so why leave another segment of the base behind, simply to pander to a voting block we have no hope of capturing?

[slackmaster]

100. Baloney - UPDATED

You consign an entire swath of the inner city population in this country to an ever increasing cycle of violence and death.

Violent crime is decreasing, not increasing.

Where the hell do you think those guns come from? They're certainly not bought from the store...

Sometimes they are.

Then they make their way to places like my old neighborhood, being used to wound and kill innocents.

Sounds like you solved the problem by getting out of a bad neighborhood. I'm not willing to sacrifice my civil rights in the vain hope that it will cure a complex social issue. Gun control is False Slack, my friend. It has never worked to reduce actual crime rates anywhere in the world. It has never made anyone safer.

And quite frankly those who are voting solely on one issue aren't going to be voting Dem anyway for the most part, so why leave another segment of the base behind, simply to pander to a voting block we have no hope of capturing?

Our past support for gun control has not served us well. Why do you think continuing on the same failed course will get Democrats back in power? It's time for new ideas, like enshrining liberty and empowering individuals to make their own choices.

NEWS FLASH!

It's definitely not the guns causing the violence, it's the lead.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050218/2005-02-18T190902Z_01_N18365455_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-HEALTH-LEAD-DC.html

[MadHound]

106. Thanks, you made at least one point for me

You state that violent crime has been decreasing. Interesting, since this statistic covers the same time frame as when gun control laws were becoming stricter.

You obviously haven't lived anywhere close to an inner city neighborhood, nor been in contact with the people who reside there. I can guarantee you that for every gun purchased legally in an inner city, the next ten thousand have been ripped off. Don't you fucking get it? These people are A: Poor, they cannot afford the retail price for a gun, and B: Criminals, therefore they cannot legally buy a gun retail. Sheesh, think friend.

Yes, I solved my problem, but millions of others simply don't have the resources and wherewithall to do as I did. You say you don't want to sacrifice your civil liberties, and yet YOU accuse me of putting up a straw man? That's a laugh, because I'm not asking you to give up your civil liberties, there are just certain guns that shouldn't be sold. Where we disagree on is which guns those are. You want your precious AK-47, me, I think it is a gun of no practical value, either for hunting or self defense. If you have to fire more than once when hunting, you're most likely just wasting ammo. And even the NRA agrees that the best gun for home defense is the double barreled or pump twelve guage shotgun. Thus, what in the hell do you need an AK for? For most owners, it seems that it is more an issue of penile compensation than anything else. So that is what the innocents in the inner city are dying for, so somebody out in the burbs can feel like a big man:eyes:

And how has our past support for gun control not served us well. Despite what you say, reasonable gun control IS supported by the majority of people in this country, as is abortion and other positions that are unpopular with the right. Why should we give in on this issue of guns in a vain attempt to pick up more votes from the center? We've tried that tactic the past two presidential elections and we see where that has gotten us.:eyes:

Sorry, I don't your arguement friend, you're letting the NRA and the right wing define the debate. Instead of trying to pander to an electoral group that won't respond favorably anyway, we should stand up for true Democratic issues that the majority of people in this country support. In short, we should be proud Dems again, rather than trying to skulk in as 'Pug lites.

[slackmaster]

108. The AK-47 is a machinegun and is regulated under the NFA of 1934

Nobody, except perhaps reply #13, is advocating repealing the National Firearms Act.

Functionally a semiautomatic AK variant is no different than the Ruger Mini-14 or Ranch Rifle, which are clearly sporting arms and were specifically exempted from the defunct federal assault weapons ban.

Please be specific: What exactly are you saying should be banned?

[DaveinMD]

110. many of these folks were part of the base

these are working class people who were with us for a very long time until gun control became a party issue for us.

New York is different than Vermont. New York should pass these laws. If people in Vermont see no need for them, so be it. I agree with Governor Dean's position on this issue.

[Deep13]

98. False

>>>Actually, the majority of people, no matter if they're in red or blue states, support gun control, and apparently support among 'burbanites is strong also<<<

Not here. It doesn't matter how they think when they are asked by polls. What matters is if it will influence their vote. Pro-gun control people are not single-issue voters generally, but anti-gun control people are. My feet are on the ground here in Deliveranceville and we get clobbered by this issue every year. That and abortion. People around here are brought up in this gun culture and view even peripheral efforts to curb it as somehow unamerican.

>>>Perhaps you would do well to stop letting the NRA frame this debate, for they will spin reality to fit their own point of view everytime.<<<

What do you mean 'letting the NRA'. They are not asking my permission. They make it an issue whether we want to or not.

>>>And if you feel that we need to draw the line, where should that line be drawn and why?<<<

It should be drawn right behind where it stops making a difference on election day. I think the reason is pretty obvious. This is not about whether gun control is good or bad, but whether it is worth continued defeat at the polls in the Midwest, South West and South.

>>>And so you're blaming inner city folks for the Democratic losses now? Again, you show your ignorance as inner city people had the highest turnout rate for this last election than for any other in the past thirty years.<<<

No, I am pointing out that voting makes people politically relevant. Whatever the cause, non-participation causes people to be irrelevant. That is why inner city residents are not driving this debate. For the record, however, Cleveland had the lowest turn out of registered voters in Ohio, though it was higher than usual. It was around 60%. It was closer to 75% statewide. The assumption is that it was because it was raining that day.

Kerry had a plan to insure every child in America. He also wanted minimum wage hikes and a reasonable end to the war. I cannot begin to tell you the kind of effort we put into the Ohio campaign. The Kerry campaign hired 70 full-time field coordinaters to manage the 1000s of volunteers. We turned this state inside out, but the Rs did it better. Frankly, those of us who worked for the JK campaign in Ohio have nothing to apologize for. We died fighting. Truth is, an examination of turnout over the past 20 years shows that the Ds do best when turn-out is low. 1992 and 1996 were record low years.

My attitudes do not come from ignorance, but from my education in the school of hard knocks. Frankly, those of us who actually are fighting in the counties of middle America cannot afford to indulge in the sentimental horseshit that seems to be driving a lot of people's thinking.

[MadHound]

112. Please friend, don't make assumptions about me

I live in one of the reddest counties in one of the reddest state in the country. Hell, my home county didn't officially rejoin the union until ten years ago. Does that tell you anything about the mindset of the people I deal with and know intimately? Don't assume that I don't have experience and knowledge to back myself up with.

And quite frankly, even if the Democrats said "Sure, let's drop all gun restrictions" that it would bring a bunch of otherwise conservative gun nuts flocking to the party, for it wouldn't. You are again making assumptions, that the majority of these people are single issue voters, when in truth they aren't. We drop gun control, and they will have another reason ready for why they won't vote Democratic. So the question is, once again, why should we drop a position that the majority of people in this country agree with, in a vain attempt to pick up some more votes? You haven't learned from the last few election cycles? The Democratic party has swung so far to the right that they're making Goldwater look liberal, yet we still haven't won. Perhaps we should go back to our liberal roots, duh!

And by taking this position, yes, you are buying into the spin and minority position that the NRA is promulgating. You are buying into the spin that there is monolithic, single issue, bloc of gun voters that we have to court. Don't you get it? They're not single issue, they're not monolithic. Guns and gun control are just another issue that influences people, one more among many, like the war and abortion. What's next to give up? Become pro-life, anti-gay, and balls out pro military? Sorry, but there will still be a multitude of issues that will seperate us from the conservatives.

Part of the real problem with the Democratic party is that they're giving up, downplaying all of their core issues, swinging to the right in a vain attempt to pick up the center. This is turning off literally millions of people, who are dropping out of voting altogether, saying, with justification, that there is little difference between the two parties. Most of these people are liberal, and this has been born out buy the upsurge in the Nader and Green voters. For the past two presidential election cycles, these folks have been able to energize millions of voters WHO HAD DROPPED OUT OF POLITICS COMPLETELY, simply by being truly liberal. Gee, maybe if the Dems, with their vast money and resources, would get behind a like effort they would stand a chance of winning. Going towards the center obviously hasn't worked.

[slackmaster]

119. Gun control wasn't a "core issue" for Democrats until the 1980s

Taking it on has alienated some of our core constitutencies - Blue collar union workers, farmers, rural people, hunters who respect the environment.

Gun control is an albatross.

[googly]

95. Guns, Jesus, Propaganda of lies, $$$ should do it n/t

[Spiffarino]

101. I don't think the party should take any position on it

I own a shotgun and I really enjoy it. I also own two mandolins and a dog. So what? As long as I don't use it for killing people and have no desire to, why should I give up something (trap and skeet) that I love to do?

I have friends who love to hunt. I like animals. I think deer are pretty and frankly, I have no desire to shoot Bambi's mother. Yet I would support no law that would outright stop them from doing it.

I've known people who have had abortions. I don't "like" abortions and I wish there weren't any, but I'm not going to sit still for laws that deny women their right to their own health choices.

Different subjects? Sure. But what is the point of being a Democrat if we're going to go down the same road as the Republicans and deny people's basic rights?

[American Tragedy]

105. We should just say that we support the 2nd Amendment & it's a state issue

I agree that the DNC should project a more positive view of gun ownership in general and render it as a part of our battle for individual rights. The thing that has disappointed me most about the Democrats lately is that they haven't been very vocal about civil liberties. Aside from my own sensibilities, I would think that people would be supportive of a platform that strongly and directly condemns government intrusion into their minds and bodies, especially the ones who bitch about 'big government'.

Ultimately though, we need to diffuse gun issues from the national stage, and then allow local and state candidates to position themselves based on their own discretion and the norms of their region. For that matter, many of the distracting wedge issues should be so relegated, if possible.

Although I don't know what difference it will make, since Kerry waved around various firearms and rambled about being a hunter throughout the presidential campaign, and people still were convinced that he was going to take their guns away.

[DaveinMD]

111. he had a pro gun control voting record

it was hard for him to run away from that.

[derby378]

115. At the next precinct caucus...

I'll introduce a resolution asking the Texas Democratic Party to drop all support for a Federal AWB. I invite other Texas DUers to join me in this initiative. Who's with me?

[Q]

122. The Propagandists have won...

...and the centrists in the Dem party helped them along the way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

123. You mean the panderers in the Dem Party have bowed to the right.

As usual.

[DaveinMD]

125. this was a DLC issue

it a national party issue until Clinton. Its a pure DLC issue. So how does this go along with the diatribe about bowing to the right.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

124. Butter!

[slackmaster]

126. Parkay!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

127. Oleo?

:shrug:

[kineneb]

128. Gun control is...

hitting what you aim at! I own guns, shoot them and don't have a problem with them. I also am a lefty white female! Grandpa owned guns and went hunting; heck, if the deer get too outrageous here and try to eat my roses, they may become dinner! I think the Dems need to completely drop the subject.

The criminals and the wealthy will always be able to well armed, so why make unenforceable laws?

[proudbluestater]

129. How can Dems win the Senate, HR, and Presidency?

By buying Diebold and the other Repuke voting machine makers and electing all Democratic Secretaries of State. For a start.