History doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes; lessons from 2004 re: the gun issue.

[benEzra]

Here's a crosspost to DU from January 2005 that I wrote in late 2004 on the John Kerry Forum (later Common Ground Common Sense), after Kerry was hurt badly in several key swing states by the gun issue, just as Gore was in '00 and Clinton in '16.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (2004)

A lot of JK forum members at the time simply couldn't understand why his talking up hunting and "huntin' guns" didn't defuse the issue, hence the post. Some minor details of the landscape have shifted in the last 12 years, it wasn't very polished, and my gun collection has changed a bit, but the key points still stand, I think. And I'll point out that a pro-gun, formerly-NRA-endorsed Dem (Cooper) appears to have won the governorship of NC this year, even as the exact same voters soundly rejected Clinton.

I can't get to this post from around the same time frame from DU's Virginiamountainman (the old DU archives appear to be down), but he hit some of the same themes. It was entitled "Alienated Rural Democrat", and discussed how the gun issue drove lifelong Dems in his state of WV out of the party, including his own family.

I watched how the gun issue affected the races in '94, '96 (Congressional), '98, '00, '02, and '04. The party started listening and mostly dropped the issue by '06, and Obama largely defused the gun issue in '08 by saying he couldn't ban "assault weapons" even if he wanted to, and implied he didn't. But the Third Way yanked the DNC back to gun bans with a vengeance after 2012, and history repeats.

So, I'll say it One. More. Time. Stop trying to ban people's guns and magazines. Just stop. And before you say "I only want to ban X", just keep in mind that X is most likely just a buzzword for a large subset of "people's guns and magazines."

Please just stop it, dammit.

Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What?
Posted by benEzra in Guns
Wed Jan 05th 2005, 11:33 AM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x97165

Some of you may know me as a regular on the Common Ground Common Sense forum, formerly the JK forum. Shortly after the election, I pulled a lot of thoughts together into one document about how the party might stop alienating gun owners so badly. Please read it with an open mind, and post any feedback you'd like. For those of you who hate guns, it may at least help you understand where gun owners like my wife and I are coming from. Thanks!

--benEzra


Democrats and the gun issue: Now what?

First, let me say that I'm a gun owner. Second, I don't hunt.

To some of you, that automatically makes me wierd. After all, aren't most gun owners hunters? Isn't hunting the main reason law-abiding Americans own guns? And aren't hunting guns what most American gun owners are so protective of?

Well--no. And it's this misunderstanding may have just cost the Democratic party another national election. But please hear me out.

After the 2000 election, when Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and pro-union West Virginia--and consequently the White House--over the gun issue, the gun-control group Americans for Gun Safety counseled Democrats that if the party made its support for hunting and hunters vocal enough, and got that message out, then the gun issue would cease to be the black hole sucking votes away from Democrats. The party could push “moderate” gun control such as banning nonhunting guns, and gun owners would feel assured that their gun rights were going to be restricted.

It didn't work out that way this year; the gun issue was still a major factor in this election. Pro-gun Democrats tended to win in pro-gun states, but Democrats who had supported bans on nonhunting guns tended to lose. Here in North Carolina, Democrat Mike Easley (who opposes more gun control and is rated "A" by the NRA) easily won reelection, but nationally known Democrat Erskine Bowles (an ardent supporter of the "assault weapons ban&quot lost his Senate race to no-name Republican Richard Burr. And many of the same voters who elected our Democratic governor voted against the Democratic presidential ticket. Why?

The leading Democrat in the Senate, Tom Daschle, was hammered at the polls by gun owners and lost to a relative unknown, despite commercial after commercial showing Daschle hunting with a shotgun. Why?

Ohio, where the Presidency was lost, went heavily for Senator Kerry in urban areas, but rural gun owners went heavily for Bush, despite the senator's heavy emphasis on his support for hunting. Why?

The answer is very simple--so simple, in fact, that it’s puzzling why the party has missed it for so long. Let's look at the numbers. It is estimated that there are estimated to between 65 and 80 million gun owners in the United States. There are between 13 and 16 million licensed hunters in the United States. Now do some math. Four out of five gun owners are not hunters. I repeat: 80% of gun owners are not hunters.

So why is the national party trying so hard to recast the protections of the Second Amendment as applying only to hunting firearms, if 80% of gun owners don't hunt and hunting has absolutely nothing to do with 2nd-Amendment jurisprudence? Or to turn the question around--why did party leaders think that demonstrating support for hunters would allow the party to go after nonhunting guns with impunity? Four out of five gunnies don't hunt; is it any wonder that a pro-hunting message didn't win the bloc?

The party platform-writers can talk all they want about supporting the Second Amendment, but if we nonhunters lose the right to choose to own nonhunting-style guns, we have lost our Second-Amendment rights. Period. As a nonhunter, I personally don't care if I am "allowed" to own a skeet shotgun or a slug gun suitable for deer; I want to keep my modern-looking small-caliber self-loader, thanks. I'm a Gen X'er, that's what I grew up thinking was cool, and that's what I as a law-abiding American citizen choose to own. And my wife would just as soon keep her 15-round defensive handgun. And apparently, a lot of gun owners feel the same way I do.

Don't get me wrong. I fully support hunters and the right to hunt-- indeed, the excise taxes my wife and I and millions of others pay on our nonhunting guns and ammunition helps fund the game lands that hunters enjoy. But I wish the Democratic party would practice a bit more tolerance for us law-abiding gun owners who don't fit its narrow ivory-tower stereotype of "acceptable" gun ownership.

In the last two presidential elections, the party has consciously tried to split hunters and wingshooters away from nonhunting gun owners; "we'll go after the hunting vote," goes the logic, "and leave owners of other styles of firearms to the Republicans." But that's bad math, since 80% of gun owners don't hunt, and of the 20% that do, many probably own nonhunting firearms too. And trying hard to win a small percentage of a voting bloc while driving the majority of that bloc---and its most committed and motivated advocates---to your opponent is not the way to win a voting bloc.

The prohibitionists have taken the Democratic party for a ride--straight down. Since September 1994, when prominent Democrats led the charge to ban practically all firearms holding over 10 rounds, restricted civilian long guns based on silly distinctions such as what their handgrips look like, and threw the whole weight of the party's prestige and resources behind the movement to ban nonhunting firearms, the Democrats' once-rising star has plummeted. Backing prohibition of nonhunting guns cost the party control of the House in 1994, cost the party control of the Senate, and has now arguably cost a SECOND hard-fought presidential election. Yet the party's response may once again be to try to repackage its support for additional gun prohibition in yet more "hunter-friendly" rhetoric. Perhaps hunters were taken in by NRA rhetoric, party leaders may think yet again. Perhaps hunters didn't get the message that we support hunting, that we support conservation. Perhaps we need yet more photo-ops in hunting gear, more photo-ops at skeet shoots. But perhaps there's a simpler reason that the party's obvious support for hunting didn't defuse the gun issue. Maybe its because most gun owners don't hunt.

Some leading Democratics still don't get it. Democratic strategist Steve Murphy, listing the things that Democrats should absolutely NOT do in order to stop driving away swing voters, stated emphatically that the party should not abandon the push for additional "moderate" gun control, a position echoed by authoritarians at the Democratic Leadership Council. Unfortunately, what urban ivory-tower strategists consider "moderate"---outlawing various nonhunting-style firearms---is considered "extremist" to a lot of us gun owners. But to these strategists, gun control seems to be the Holy Grail--the party can ditch anything else in its platform, it can lose every presidential election, it can continue its slide in Congress, but it must continue to push for more and more restrictions on the rights of nonhunting gun owners.

What if the Republicans tried something like this? Imagine, if you will, the Republican party trying to woo swing voters by pushing to ban all alcoholic beverages over 10% alcohol content, banning beer and wine based on the shape of the bottle they come in (since beverages in tall, dark-colored bottles "have no nutritional purpose&quot , demonizing wine drinkers as "extremists," and portraying champagne as "the beverage of choice of rapists and drunk drivers"? Although this might appeal to some conservative Baptist teetotolers, who are probably going to vote Republican anyway, do you think this might POSSIBLY hurt the Republican party among the 50% or so of Americans who regularly partake of alcoholic beverages? That would be a really foolish move politically, wouldn't it? Now what if the Repubs didn’t just try this once, but over and over and over and over, losing election after election on the issue but thinking “it’s sure to work next time"?

But that's exactly what the national Democratic party is doing with the gun issue, isn't it? Trying to curry favor with gun-404 urbanites living in states with draconian gun laws, by advocating nationwide restrictions on whatever the gun-prohibitionist lobby tags with a scary name? Labeling people who own nontraditional-looking firearms as “extremists” and “terrorists”? And after every lost election, blaming it on bad talking points and thinking “it’s sure to work next time”? See the problem?

So what can the Democratic party do to defuse this issue? Here's some ideas.

Confront stereotypes. When I say I'm a gun owner, what image of me comes to your mind? A middle-aged white male who talks with a Southern drawl, drives a pickup truck, chews tobacco, likes beer, and owns lots of camoflage clothing? Or do you think of a thirtysomething college-educated guitar-playing, poetry-reading physics geek with glasses and a goatee, who drives a Toyota Camry and is dad to a special-needs kid? Because I'm the latter. I recently worked with a gun owner who happens to be a thirtysomething college-educated black female from New York state who often drives a Lexus to work. And I am married to a gun owner from Cambridge, Massachusetts who grew up in Maine, has a B.A. in English, and studies medieval history for fun.

But let's probe our prejudices a bit further. What if I tell you my most cherished rifle is a SAR-1, a civilian rifle that looks (but does NOT function) like an AK-47? Is your first response to view me as an incipient wacko, full of paranoia about "black helicopters" and "the gubmint"? If so, why? Because all the "AK" owners you've met are like that, or because the media told you to view me like that?

Stop confusing law-abiding gun owners with criminals. Gun crime is a problem. But being tough on law-abiding gun owners is not the same as being tough on crime. It is vital to make that distinction. Any gun is dangerous in the hands of a violent criminal. America's law-abiding gun owners are NOT the problem, and whether we own hunting or nonhunting firearms has nothing to do with it.

As it stands in 2005, the gun control issue isn't about your common street criminal. Criminals are already prohibited from owning a gun. The people whom Feinstein and Schumer and the DLC are fighting to place new gun-ownership-restrictions on are people like my wife and I, who have never had so much as a speeding ticket. Calls for more and more restriction on gun ownership are aimed squarely at us.

Get educated on gun issues. Democratic politicians should take a closer look at the technical issues involved in gun legislation before jumping on the prohibitionist bandwagon du jour. If an anti-car activist advocated banning Honda Civics with 18" wheels, rear wings, levitation lights, and windshield-washer LED's because they are "race cars" that can "outrun police" and "have no legitimate transportation purpose," do you think the average senator or congressperson would fall for it? No, because they are all familiar enough with cars to know that glow lights and chrome wheels don't make a car go any faster, even if it makes it look faster. But when an anti-gun activist claims that thumbhole target stocks, vertical handgrips, threaded muzzles, or rugged looks make a rifle an "assault weapon" that "out-guns police" and "has no legitimate purpose," many legislators fall for it, because they aren't really all that familiar with guns or gun law. That needs to change.

Whenever a Democrat urges a ban on "weapons of war like AK-47's and Uzi's," he or she looks dishonest to gun enthusiasts familiar with the law, because military AK-47's and Uzi's are already tightly restricted by Federal law, the National Firearms Act of 1934---which, after all, has only been on the books for SEVENTY YEARS. Oh, the prohibitionists didn't tell you that the legislation they gave you didn't ban any military weapons, did they? Just civilian nonhunting firearms like my wife's 15-round Glock handgun. It astounds me that more than ten years after the 1994 "assault weapons ban" was passed, many politicians and respected media organizations were still reporting that the ban covered "automatic weapons" or "weapons of war" or "machine guns." When all anyone had to do was go to the BATFE web site and read the Federal Firearms Law FAQ to find that this was 100% wrong.

When leading Democrats seek to ban any ammunition capable of piercing body armor--which practically ANY centerfire rifle caliber will do--why are they surprised when rifle owners feel threatened? (Yes, even grandpa's old .30-30 Winchester deer rifle will drill through level II or IIIA body armor like it's not there.) Oh, the prohibitionists didn't tell you that Kevlar body armor is only designed to stop handgun rounds, did they? But ten minutes' research would have revealed that--if any Democratic strategist had bothered to check.

I could go on. About the myth that a nontraditional-looking 9mm handgun like a civilian Uzi lookalike will “blow a deer to smithereens,” even though it is only one-seventh as powerful as an ordinary .30-06 hunting rifle. Or the canard that rifles with vertical handgrips are “designed to be spray-fired indiscriminately from the hip,” even though a vertical handgrip is more ergonomic than a conventional grip for shooting from the shoulder based on simple human forearm anatomy. Or the claim that the .223 Remington is an ultra-powered super-bullet too powerful for civilians to own, even though it’s the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle cartridges. Or that my SAR-1 is a “weapon of mass destruction” that can “penetrate police body armor from a thousand yards away.” Yeah, right. And my Toyota Camry goes 200 miles per hour and gets 150 mpg. Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

Maybe Democratic politicians should hire a few pro-gun staffers (not just pro-hunting, but pro-gun in the broader sense) to try to expose these embarassing details before introducing wrongheaded legislation or issuing inane press releases. And maybe the party should view prohibitionist talking points about "assault weapons" and "cop-killer bullets" and "sniper rifles" and "pocket rockets" with the same skepticism they currently reserve for NRA pronouncements.

Pro-gun Democrats--and gun-ambivalent Democrats who don't see the point in alienating tens of millions of voters for no good reason--need to take back the party from the prohibitionists. People like Senator Charles Schumer, who thinks the shape of a rifle's stock affects its lethality, or that a puny 9mm Luger is too powerful/lethal for "civilians" to own (but is OK with "civilians" owning .338 Lapua magnums and 12-gauge shotguns), have absolutely no business setting the party's gun policy.

Don't try to gauge public opinion from "push polls." Perhaps one reason the party was sucked into banning over-10-round- and nontraditional-looking guns in the first place were all the polls claiming that 70% or more Americans favor banning them. But such figures typically come from push polls that misrepresent what the ban actually covers (i.e, "Do you favor outlawing rapid-fire military-style assault weapons that out-gun police and are designed to quickly kill large numbers of people in a very short time," blah blah blah). If instead you ask, "Should all firearms that hold over 10 rounds, like the handguns police carry, be outlawed for civilian use?" you might get a somewhat different response, no?

Remember that nonhunters have gun rights, too. Standing up for hunters is great, and should be applauded. But hunters are only a small fraction of law-abiding gun owners. Don't forget that the rest of us have rights, too.

"Moderate" gun control is already on the books. Prohibitionists consider banning various classes of nonhunting style firearms as "moderate" gun control. To those of us in flyover country, that's not "moderate." It's extreme.

"Moderate" gun control is restricting automatic weapons, firearms over .50 caliber, cut-down firearms, and explosives; requiring background checks for purchases from any gun dealer, even at a gun show; prohibiting a criminal or anyone adjudicated mentally incompetent from touching a gun; requiring background checks and licensing in order to carry a firearm; strictly regulating when a gun can be drawn and/or used in self-defense; restrictions on armor-piercing handgun ammunition and hypothetical "plastic guns" that could evade metal detectors, and so on. All of the above laws are already on the books.

The line of demarcation between civilian and non-civilian firearms was drawn seventy years ago, by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The gun-control advocates really crossed the line when they shattered that compromise in 1994 and tried to outlaw guns that have been deemed suitable for law-abiding civilians to own for 70 to 130 years. In so doing, they stepped all over the rights of the law-abiding while doing little or nothing about the real criminals. And it motivated gun enthusiasts like me into political activism like no gun-related issue has before or since.

I'm not asking for loosening restrictions. I'm just saying that the huge array of restrictions already on the books is enough; continuing to pile more and more restrictions on the heads of law-abiding gun owners (like saying I can't own a certain rifle because of the way the stock is shaped) is wrongheaded and doesn't address gun misuse at all.

Leave it to the states. Advocating "moderate" gun control may play fairly well in places like Southern California, Massachusetts, New York City, Chicago, and D.C . But what the prohibitionists consider "moderate" can be politically disastrous in pro-gun states like Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Nevada, and West Virginia.

If it is so important for gun-404 residents of NYC or Boston or Chicago or San Francisco (where legal ownership of ALL types of guns is rather difficult) to have a ban on low-powered-but-scary-looking guns to make them feel better, let them work for a LOCAL ban, or at worst a state ban (which is already law in Massachusetts, California, and a few other gun-phobic states) instead of trying to shove a national ban down the throats of people in other states who not only don't want one, but who will politically mobilize and fight tooth and nail to defeat any national candidate that calls for one. That is one key lesson the Democratic party needs to learn from the 2004 election.

So why not just leave it to the states? If the people of California want to make owning a rifle with a black plastic stock a felony, they can. If the people of North Carolina wish to own 15-round handguns, they can. And the issue ceases to be the albatross around the national party's neck.

Many Democrats complain about the NRA's influence in national elections. But if the national Democratic leadership would simply drop the crusade against nonhunting guns, the NRA wouldn't even CARE who won. Internet gun forums like the Firing Line and the High Road would once again go back to debating whether 9mm or .45 is the most versatile caliber, or whether .223 Remington is better than 7.62x39mm, instead of organizing to defeat the (mostly Democratic) politicians behind the ban du jour. And I'd be spending more time at the shooting range instead of blogging away at a computer.

It appears that at least some Democratic leaders are beginning to understand. Senator Russ Feingold, who voted for the original ban on nontraditional-looking and over-10-round guns in 1994, rethought the issue and voted against renewing the ban in 2004. And he won reelection.

So, now what? In light of this past election, will the party now stop, leave the issue up to the states, and leave law-abiding owners of nonhunting guns alone? Will the party now stay out of our gun safes, instead of risking election after election in order to get "just a little more" restrictions on the rights of law-abiding nonhunters?

Is the national party going to respect the Second Amendment rights of ALL gun-owning Americans, or just support only the relatively small fraction that chooses to hunt? Is outlawing nontraditional-looking guns really the single most important plank in the entire Democratic party platform, or will the party finally drop it--DROP IT--and move on to the issues the leadership says are more important? Will the party continue to present owners of nonhunting guns with the choice of "vote non-Democrat, or else"?

You tell me. And the other tens of millions of gun-owning nonhunters like me.

We'll be listening.

I wrote that almost exactly twelve years ago. And the party is still making the same damn mistakes, even though rifle and magazine bans play even worse now than they did then.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172200614

[frazzled]

1. Maybe we should be a little more racist and homophobic, too

That seems to get votes as well. Let's just abandon all our reasonable positions and take on all the Republican issues instead, from lower taxes for the rich and corporations to privatizing Medicare. It works! Boy, have we been suckers standing for the right things, when all along it is the wrong things that are so appealing to rabid Americans!

Thanks, but no thanks: I will not change my position on sensible gun safety laws, including a ban on assault weapons, and neither should the Democratic Party.

Remember the House Sit-In? It was our party's finest moment of late.

?preset=534-401

[Jason1961]

2. The House Sit in made me Proud to be a Democrat

The idea that we have to be okay with gun violence to win elections is just stupid. I'll file this next to "be more racist"

[benEzra]

4. "Being OK with gun violence" and "supporting reactionary laws against the nonviolent"...

...are quite different concepts.

But if you wish to continue getting pushback, keep promising to imprison 60+ million citizens because of what they have in their bedrooms, instead of refining your proposals to realistically target the actual problem.

[Amishman]

9. Please go read the OP again, you missed the point

Most of the gun laws / bans that are covered have little to do with gun violence.

Our platform should be: we don't care what gun you want to own, as long as you are not a criminal/crazy and store it safely.

[benEzra]

13. Yes, exactly. (n/t)

[Kathy M]

25. Gun violence .... gun ownership two different things

Gun violence is never good .... No tolerance for that


I do not own a gun , I do know many people who do though

Democrats are going to have to address this subject differently ... just reread the Original post ........

If amendment or ban is then there will be another , and another ..... where does it stop ? I am not saying last statement that is what I have heard ........................

[benEzra]

3. If you fail to understand the nuances of the issue, you'll fail to understand how to avoid missteps.

Your response is *exactly* why Gore failed to learn from Bill Clinton's mistakes in 2000, and lost; ditto Kerry in '04. Howard Dean worked hard to shed that fundamentalist mindset, and Dems did well in '06 and '08, before the Third Way authoritarians dragged the party back into the ditch in 2012-2013.

If you see mainstream gun ownership as a "sin" like racism and bigotry, then that failure to listen is certainly understandable. But purely from a pragmatic standpoint, it is helpful to understand the issue even if you personally don't like the guns in U.S. homes.

There is common ground to be found on violence prevention. Banning the most popular guns and magazines in U.S. homes isn't it.

[frazzled]

5. If all you can see is guns

then you are dealing with an obsession. And if all you can see are nuances, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Your theory is that Democrats who lost have lost on guns alone. And that Howard Dean was the answer. That's kind of crazy.

[benEzra]

6. Not exactly, but you are certainly welcome to think it was a nonissue here.

My contention is that Dems have lost a certain percentage of Dem and Independent gun-owner votes on the gun issue. That swing is much larger than the margin of loss here in NC.

If you're fine with that, keep pushing more of the same for the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential election. Because it definitely worked so well this year.

[hollowdweller]

149. THE number one issue that turned people republican in WV

I know tons of people who used to be democrats who now are republican or vote that way because of gun control.

Obama won in part because dems did not push the issue since the days of Clinton.

Manchin will lose in 2018 because he sponsored a gun control bill.

I hunt and have guns and have no problem with expanded background checks and stuff.

However the problem I DO have with ANY gun control is it's blown out of proportion by NRA and GOP and loses us votes.

Clinton beat up Bernie because he was no sufficiently anti gun. That actually helped him in rural states.

Chelsea was quoted as saying they wanted to have new justices on the bench that would help them further restrict guns, that HURT Clinton.

My argument is gun control is not as pressing an issue as what is going to happen now because we pushed it too much.

[stone space]

18. You didn't choose a mainstream example. You chose an open Zimmerman supporter.

If you see mainstream gun ownership as a "sin" like racism and bigotry, then that failure to listen is certainly understandable. But purely from a pragmatic standpoint, it is helpful to understand the issue even if you personally don't like the guns in U.S. homes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512634900#post17

You are trying to get us to coddle racists, here.

[stone space]

41. I agree.

Remember the House Sit-In? It was our party's finest moment of late.

[TwilightZone]

7. You think guns were the primary issue of this campaign?

Did you pay any attention at all to the past year?

[benEzra]

8. I said they were *a* huge issue in a lot of swing states this year, as in 2000 and 2004.

A lot of states that went for Obama in '08, I'll point out.

My state (NC) appears to have elected a pro-gun-owner Dem governor, while rejecting the anti-gun-owner presidential candidate. If you were to explore the reasons, you might find that threatening 2+ *million* NC residents with major felonies (a la the NY SAFE Act) might convince a few hundred thousand Dems and indies to stay home or leave the Presidential ballot blank. Just as in TN and WV in '00 (Gore lost his own home state), or a bunch of swing states in '04. And what was the margin of loss in heavily-gun-owning MI? FL? OH?

You may not *like* guns, but it is certainly helpful to understand that there are roughly 100 million gun owners, that they tend to vote at higher rates than the general population, and that they are more likely to vote the issue than are people who don't like guns. It's the ham and egg principle; if you're a chicken, you're concerned, but if you're a pig, you're involved.

And given those facts, is it too much to ask that the Dem leadership actually try to understand the nuances of the issue, instead of letting their policies and legislative proposals be set by those who don't understand, and can't avoid stepping on the mines?

Let me put it this way. If you proposed to outlaw hunting, and make it a Class D felony equivalent to rape for someone to go in the woods and shoot a deer, do you think you *might* get some pushback at the polls from the ~16 million Americans who hunt? If so, then why is it hard to grasp that threatening 60+ million with such felonies might create similar backlash?

[DanTex]

10. Also in 2012 when Obama endorsed the AWB and gun nuts unanimously predicted

that he would lose because of that.

[benEzra]

12. *After* the 2012 election. The results of that shift fell out in the 2014 midterms. How'd that go?

It wasn't until after the 2012 election and the Sandy Hook murders (which neither a handgrip ban nor a magazine ban would have affected in the slightest) that the party went all-in on handgrip and magazine bans, rather than just pandering to Bloomberg's money.

Aside from greatly increasing rifle and magazine sales, the late-2012 reversion to the pre-2006 position ended up hurting Dems in the 2014 midterms and was a big part of losing *seven* Senate seats, which handed control of the Senate to the repubs.

Here in my state of NC, Kay Hagan shifted Third Way on gun control and lost her seat to a no-name repub in an upset. Udall in Colorado and Braley in Iowa, both strong ban proponents, lost to pro-gun repubs. Pro-gun Dem Max Baucus retired in Montana, so the party ran gun control zealot Amanda Curtis---in fricking Montana!---and lost the seat. Repubs picked up senate seats in South Dakota, where guns were a significant issue, and West Virginia, where it was huge. Pryor's loss in Arkansas can probably be blamed in part on the 2012-2014 gun ban push (do ya think people in Arkansas might, you know, own guns?).

I'm not saying gun and magazine bans were the *only* issue in play, but they are a really big one here in NC, and across most swing states. The number of states with majority gun control support can be counted on your fingers, with some fingers left over.

[DanTex]

16. Nope. He did it in a debate with Romney.

Gun nuts freaked out, and the polls changed zero. Also, in 2008 he made those (accurate) statements about people clinging to guns, religion, and xenophobia, which again were supposedly going to sink him. And the whole time the NRA was blasting him as the most anti-gun person in history.

[benEzra]

22. That was understood as pandering to the zealots; he made no real moves against gun owners.

The indiscriminate, hate-filled exploitation of the tragedy at Sandy Hook was when the "banic" occurred, when store shelves were cleared of ammo and AR production backlogged for a year, and when the die was cast for the loss of the Senate in 2014. And I would say that it wasn't Obama who was really responsible for it; it was mostly the corporate media (hate sells, via rageclicks and rage-shares on social media), plus a few hateful sound bites and draconian legislative proposals from a small set of Senate and House members, but mostly gun control activists on social media---and of course the NY SAFE Act. All I remember Obama actually doing was to express his dislike for people owning modern-looking guns, and much later the BATFE floating a half-baked proposal to ban M855 ammo that was later withdrawn as unworkable; the rest was basically restating and pledging to enforce existing law.

And the NRA is ~5 million members, compared to 12-15 million carry license holders, ~25-30 million "assault weapon" owners, ~60 million "high capacity magazine" owners, and ~100 million gun owners. What the NRA thinks, says, or does is not nearly as important to grassroots gun rights activism as gun-control activists seem to think.

You do realize I'm not an NRA member, right?

Were the NRA to disappear tomorrow, the gun control landscape wouldn't change in the slightest. You'd still run squarely against the fact that tens of millions of engaged, thoughtful, and highly motivated Americans own guns, and will keep them. You can accept that fact and look for common ground with the people you seem to hate but (realistically) have to coexist with, or the party can keep supporting useless, offensive crap like handgrip and magazine bans and carry-license harassment, and keep getting the same pushback.

The Third Way has been pushing to outlaw rifle handgrips for a frakking quarter century now, and so far they have achieved:

-- Mostly-ignored cosmetic bans in ~7 states, despite extreme penalties;
-- Record gun and ammo sales nearly every year for the last two decades;
-- Modern-looking rifles now dominate rifle ownership and the shooting sports;
-- Half a billion over-10-round magazines in U.S. homes;
-- Republican control of most state legislatures;
-- Republican control of the House and Senate;
-- President Trump.

Quite a track record. On the upside, rifle violence is now at historic lows...

[DanTex]

23. LOL. In other words, your whole story is based on false premises.

Yeah, the NRA never thought Obama was serious about gun control! They loved the guy from the start!

Look, you're right that a lot of members of the "white working class" are totally indifferent to the tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year. And so if progressives decided that they didn't care about the massive and totally gratuitous loss of innocent life, they could pick up a few gun nut votes. Obviously.

But the same could be said about abortion, or climate change, or gay marriage, or whatever else.

[Nancyswidower]

36. "..they could pick up a few gun nut votes." You vastly underestimate the gun vote

at your peril.....that's on you.

[DanTex]

37. The racist vote is pretty big too. Mostly the same vote, really.

[benEzra]

43. See? I rest my case. (n/t)

[DanTex]

55. I'm a (former) Texan. I know gun nuttery.

You might be able to convince some other people that gun fanatics are actually misunderstood enlightened intellectuals (although from the looks of it few people here are buying it), but having had first hand experience, you're not going to be able to sell me on that particular piece of fiction.

[Nancyswidower]

62. How's that view of your fellow citizens worked out for you??

[DanTex]

65. Great. I live in NYC now. Best city on the planet IMO. Though I do like Paris.

[Nancyswidower]

68. We're damn near neighbors....

I live in the Adirondack Park.....I still have my fire arms and you live in NYC..a cop may get to you eventually...I know many City cops, I'm in the City 2 times a month....I'll bet you beer/bullet money they agree with me more than you

[DanTex]

71. I love the Adirondacks, though I don't know where Adirondack Park is exactly.

What I especially like about the Adirondacks is that they're far enough away from NYC to keep city slickers like me from turning them into the Hamptons. Also the state or whoever is in charge does a good job protecting the nature. Lake Champlain too. The whole North Country is great.

[Nancyswidower]

74. Encon protects the wilderness...funded by, in part, hunters like me...

When you need a Cop...call the 120th...it's in Staten Island but my cousin is OTJ...he may help you out...up here we mostly do for ourselves...because we can and have to.

[Nancyswidower]

46. Keep that mindset....we look forward to it....you'll be in the minority for decades.

You'll piss and moan about it but your post/mindset is why.....nobody to blame but yourself

[DanTex]

53. You look forward to Dems being the minority? Why are you on DU?

[Nancyswidower]

60. Not Democrats....you grabbers....many Democrats like me support gun RIGHTS.

And we Vote...and hope you stay the minority side of the ledger.

[DanTex]

61. So I take it you voted for Hillary?

[Nancyswidower]

66. Of course I did....she wasn't going to grab guns no matter what she said.

She wasn't going to try to overturn the ban on Manufacture law suits...she knew she couldn't..she was not threat to me.

[DanTex]

69. Very good. If even a hard core gunner like you voted Dem, looks like the "concern" expressed

by the OP is unnecessary. Looks like we're on the same side, supporting the party that supports stronger gun laws.

[benEzra]

42. "Tens of thousands" aren't killed by the guns you want to ban; less than 150 are.

And of those, not a single one would be saved by requiring rifles to have stocks like this:

[img][/img]
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5802.html

instead of like this:


https://www.remington.com/rifles/modern-sporting/model-r-15/model-r-15-vtr-predator-moe-16-1/2

or like this:


http://www.ruger.com/products/sr22Rifle/specSheets/11134.html

Nor would any lives be saved by declaring common magazines verboten.

Nor would any lives be saved by telling carry license holders that we can't carry in restaurants with wine lists, or whatever.

Stuff like that isn't about preventing violence. Not in the slightest.

[DanTex]

51. Who said I wanted to ban anything?

I would like to see European style gun laws in the US, and we could basically get there by reclassifying handguns and semi-automatic rifles under NFA.

Yeah, I know, never gonna happen. But that would be the right thing to do.

Failing that, universal background checks would be a move in the right direction.

Having said that, if I was going to murder a lot of people in a school, I would choose a rifle with a pistol grip, a front grip, and 30+ round magazines. And if you're going to tell me that instead you'd use a hunting rifle with a 5-round magazine, you're lying.

[benEzra]

64. See, after all that hate, you come up with one proposal there could actually be common ground on.

Failing that, universal background checks would be a move in the right direction.

If they could be done sans registration and without hassle, rather than trying to force everything through BATFE 4473's, then there are probably was to do implement UBC that both sides could agree on. It could have been done in 1994, except the Third Way launched the Protruding Handgrip and Magazine Crusade instead.

I would like to see European style gun laws in the US, and we could basically get there by reclassifying handguns and semi-automatic rifles under NFA.

You are aware that AR's and whatnot are legal in most of Europe and Canada, yes?

You might even could have gotten licensing, in an alternate universe where licensing wasn't used as a means to routinely deny ownership, and where you hadn't made things NFA and then closed the NFA registry. In the current universe, no. We see how you treat carry licensure, and the NY SAFE Act shows where Bloomberg et al want to go.

Having said that, if I was going to murder a lot of people in a school, I would choose a rifle with a pistol grip, a front grip, and 30+ round magazines. And if you're going to tell me that instead you'd use a hunting rifle with a 5-round magazine, you're lying.

The murderer who committed the worst mass shooting *ever* (in Norway) used a straight-stocked hunting rifle:



Still not as bad as the recent attack in France with the moving truck, but it goes to show that handgrip shape is irrelevant, as are forward grips (I don't use a foregrip on my USPSA competition rifle, FWIW, though they might be handy shooting from prone). And you're talking 10-round magazines, not 5; the Virginia Tech shooter used two pistols and a backpack full of mostly 10-rounders, I think. And the Texas Tower shooter used a rifle with a 4-round magazine, did he not?

The thing is, unless you ban *all* repeating firearms, and all easily reloadable firearms, and actually make them vanish rather than driving them underground, it's irrelevant.

That also begs the question of why you are focusing on the *least* prevalent instances of gun homicide (mass shootings involving rifles), while failing to address the most prevalent: drug-prohibition-driven conflicts between criminal enterprises. Of the 500+ murders in Chicago this year, almost all involve illegally possessed handguns, not rifles of any type. And I suspect the most-misused handguns aren't the full-sized, full-capacity, hard-to-conceal ones targeted by mag bans, but the smaller, more concealable ones. Meanwhile, rifle homicide is now at historic lows.

If you are trying to fight gun violence, then attacking the peaceable and nonviolent is not a viable path forward, IMO.

[DanTex]

73. What hate?

I mean, yeah, I hate the fact that my friend's gun nut uncle accidentally shot and killed his wife. And also the fact that another friend was woken up by a mysterious sound in the middle of the night and then found bullet holes in his apartment wall (nobody was hurt).

I travel to Europe a lot for business. Nobody there seems to have these kinds of stories. Hmm... And there are basically zero people in Europe who think that they should move towards US style laws. Everyone there (correctly) thinks the gun situation in the US is nuts. I remember once in London someone talking about a shady neighborhood where "someone might pull out a knife". Ahh, so quaint.

Yeah I get it: it's possible to kill people with a hunting rifle. Or without a gun at all. But, as everyone knows, a gun makes it a lot easier, and certain guns (handguns, mostly) make it a lot lot easier.

At the end of the day, the stats speak for themselves. We're the only first-world country that has epidemic levels of gun violence. We're also the only first-world country where you can just buy a handgun, no registration, no training, minor background check which you can avoid by buying secondhand, basically nothing. It's not a big secret what's going on.

Politically, sure you have a point. My friend's still-a-gun-nut-after-accidentally-killing-his-wife uncle will never vote for anyone who supports any gun control. But in terms of basic needs of society, Euro style laws are a no brainer.

[hollowdweller]

150. Believe what you want.

But I personally know tons of people who have voted GOP over the issue who were democrats until the Clinton years.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

11. I grudgingly agree.

I wouldn't mind if every semi-automatic rifle was banned in this country (and I even own one by inheritance), but I'd rather drop the issue on the national level if it's costing us elections. There are other issues far more important to me, like helping vulnerable citizens through economic/social hardships.

[jake335544]

14. Running on gun was good for hitting Sanders on the left, bad for the general election.

The entire first half of her campaign made it seem like, guns (how repubs interpret it), or gun violence (how Dems interpret it) was the #1 issue in the country instead of the economy.

She ran with that too long and hard. There are plenty of issues that resonate with both Democrat and Republican *voters*, some that she ran on, that she ran on but could have pushed harder on:

1. A job guarantee for those willing to work and a living wage, instead of chasing the imaginary debt boogeyman
2. Middle-Class Tax cuts
3. A public option
4. Going after her husbands policies, **Scrapping** free "trade" deals, workfare, and harsh sentencing laws
5. Massive debt jubilees

[hollowdweller]

151. We see things the same.

[Kolesar]

15. the "gun issue" is about stimulating NRAnls to donate after ridiculous guns-in-bars proposals

The language in their mailers is adequate to shake out millions of dollars from the gun hobbyists/paranoids.

In Ohio , it would be legal to bring a gun into a bar, and one could hold it until the bar employees asked you to take the gun outside. How pathetic

Get educated on Gun issues Guns in schools, guns in nursing homes, guns in day care centers, shoot first/stand your ground: all are stupid permissions.

[benEzra]

19. If carry prohibitions were limited to actual carry while at a bar/drinking, or carry while impaired,

then they wouldn't be controversial. The showdown comes when gun control advocates want prohibit carry by nondrinkers in restaurants with wine lists (or all restaurants, or all stores, or all churches, or whatever), and that is irrational and counterproductive.

Here in NC, it is illegal to carry while drinking, but you can carry in restaurants with wine lists (we had to fight the fundamentalists tooth and nail to get that changed). In Florida, it is illegal to carry in a an actual bar (e.g., an establishment that derives most of its income from alcohol sales), or at a bar in a restaurant with a bar.

Once again, it comes down to nuance, rather than fundamentalist attempts at prohibition. There is common ground if you look for it.

Guns in schools, guns in nursing homes, guns in day care centers, shoot first/stand your ground: all are stupid permissions.

Guns in schools: The biggest issue there whether to make it a felony to pick up your kid from school if you have a carry license, even if you don't get out of the car; such laws are irrational and counterproductive. Here in NC, the rule is that you stay in the car; I don't see protests in the street over it. As to guns actually *in* the school, if you are talking about by trained, vetted school staff, I don't see the problem; we already allow that with SRO's, and it often saves lives in the unlikely event of an attack; if you're concerned about training and quals, let's discuss training and quals.

Guns in nursing homes. When I used to go visit my grandmother in her nursing home before she passed away this year, I probably was carrying. I certainly don't see any rational basis for drawing the gun in the parking lot to stash it in the car, any more than I'd take out my Swiss Army Knife to stash it in the car before going to see her. It's not like I was walking into a prison; it was her home.

Guns in day care centers. Where, and under what circumstances? Parents dropping off their kids? I haven't seen this one.

Stand your Ground laws. Ummm, you do realize that two thirds or more of the USA, including your gun-ban utopia of California, are "Stand Your Ground" states by case law, yes? Florida got in the news about it only because it was an oddball that *wasn't* Stand Your Ground, and changed its law to match that of most states after some high-profile malicious prosecutions of victims.

"Shoot first." You are only allowed to shoot if you are in actual imminent, unlawful danger of death or serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony, as would be perceived by a reasonable person in that situation; if you are, there is no requirement to wait to be shot or stabbed first, and this is the case in all 50 states. In almost all states, there is also a presumption of justifiability if you are the victim of a unlawful home invasion (or in some states, an unlawful carjacking); that rule predates the NRA by centuries, being one of the foundations of Western case law. It is called the "Castle Doctrine" for a reason.

And, all this circles back to the bigger question: Why are you so intent on going after trained, vetted, and licensed people with squeaky clean records who are lawfully carrying in restaurants, or while picking up their kids from school, when approximately zero murders per year out of 13,500 involve those circumstances?

The overwhelming majority of murders occur in the course of prohibition-funded criminal enterprise, and the majority of gun deaths are suicides by people who need access to pain management, mental health care, or hope, not jail. Going after licensed carry, rifle handgrips, post-1860 magazines, etc. does *nothing* to address any of that.

[Kolesar]

20. Republicans like to deflect the issue into a discussion on mental health funding

Which is quite disingenous. They want less public spending and more tax cuts for millionaires.

[benEzra]

21. I'm not a Repub, and legislating rifle stock shape doesn't prevent suicides.

Neither does mandating pre-1860s magazine capacities, or restricting licensed carry in restaurants with wine lists, all of which are complete non-issues.

So I ask again: Why the intense focus on harassing the peaceable and nonviolent, rather than addressing the actual problem areas? Namely, drug prohibition fueled violence, and people without pain management, mental health care, or hope?

I'll also point out that discouraging/barring gun owners from getting counseling for depression, or stigmatizing depression with felony-class criminal penalties like rights revocation, would *increase* suicides, not decrease it.

[Kolesar]

123. Packing Guns in the Day Care Center

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/packing-guns-in-the-day-care-center.html

The Ohio bill also extends concealed-carry privileges into the public areas of airports and police stations, other places high on the gun lobby agenda. Strong objections were offered by the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police.

The gun lobby’s campaign to make armed citizens common in American society has resulted in hundreds of laws enacted in the last decade to extend concealed carry into public places, often by overriding the right of individual communities to enact gun safety laws. Historically, this reverses the trend of Wild West days when communities like Dodge City, Kan., wisely prohibited hidden, loaded firearms.

[benEzra]

124. How are airport parking garages different from other parking garages?

And what's the rational case against permitting a licensed, trained individual to discreetly carry while she is walking to/from the airport parking garage to pick up an arriving friend, and how is that different than her carrying while walking to/from a parking garage anywhere else?

No unchecked guns are allowed past an airport's security checkpoints, and you can already bring a gun up to the baggage check-in counter *without* a license (in a case) in order to fly with one, so allowing licensed carry when dropping off or picking up passengers doesn't really change the security situation in or around the airport.

This is another example of how gun control advocates view training and licensure with contempt, and thereby shoot themselves in the foot.

[friendly_iconoclast]

125. You are applying logic to emotion-based prohibitionism, so your questions will most likely...

be studiously ignored.

[Kolesar]

153. 93% of us don't need guns to visit the airport...eom

[benEzra]

154. A point that is applicable to any other parking garage in any other place.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, to get an NC license, I had to pass a Federal background check, state background check, FBI fingerprint check, mental health records check, take a class on self-defense law and tactics, and pass a shooting qualification on a range, live fire. For those of us who have passed that bar, there is no rational basis to say that it's OK to carry when transiting to/from a bus-station parking garage or a train-station parking garage, but not an airport parking garage, when picking up a friend late at night or whatever.

Your position comes down to "I despise gun owners and especially carry license holders, and I want to screw with them as much as possible." Pragmatically, one downside of that approach is that it makes gun owners oppose even common-ground positions like carry licensure (if you want to know why Vermont-style permitless carry is spreading across the country, look back at how you treat carry licensure). Expressing contempt for background checks, training, and licensure undermines any common ground you might otherwise try to achieve on background checks, training, and licensure, doesn't it?

The other downside is that "I hold you in contempt and I don't want your kind in my country" is a bummer of a campaign message when 15+ million voters have carry licenses, and as the Attorney General of Virginia found out the hard way last year, a whole heck of a lot of them are Democrats. And the thing is, that contempt-signaling doesn't gain you *anything* in terms of violence reduction; of the 13,500 murder victims in the United States annually, approximately 0 were shot between airport parking garages and terminals by holders of carry licenses.

Here in NC, there are between 550,000 and 600,000 holders of carry licenses, or three times Clinton's margin of loss in NC. Obviously carry licensure wasn't the issue driving the train here (there are also ca. 2 million "assault weapon" and over-10-round magazine owners here, and 4-5 million gun owners total, out of 10.5 million), and the Dem governor we just elected is a strong supporter of carry licensure, but the whole "Licensed Killers" meme is still asinine and counterproductive nationally. The demographics and political trends are both running strongly in the opposite direction.

[Kolesar]

155. Your second paragraph is daff

I quit after its first sentence.

[benEzra]

156. On the contrary, there is really no other basis for harassing a cohort

who commit violent crimes at less than 1/5th the rate of the population at large and 1/2 the rate of police officers. Especially given the gun control lobby's ostensible support for licensure and training.

By reflexively attacking licensed concealed carry, gun control advocates demonstrate that they are much more concerned with criminalizing gun possession by the trained, vetted, and nonviolent than they are about addressing misuse by the criminal or irresponsible.

What's *daft* is the gun control lobby's obsession with criminalizing the least misused guns and harassing the most thoroughly vetted owners, IMHO.

[Kolesar]

157. More death and mayhem

https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C211US91037D20141217&p=miami+airport+shooting

[benEzra]

158. Umm, Florida *doesn't* allow carry in airport terminals, which is exactly the law you advocate.

This guy wasn't carrying concealed. He checked an unloaded low-capacity Walther PPS pistol and multiple 7- or 8-round magazines through on a flight from Alaska, then retrieved it from baggage claim, loaded it in a rest room, and went on a shooting spree in the no-CCW-zone of the airport. He shot and reloaded until he used up all the ammo and magazines he brought with him, then surrendered when people with guns finally showed up.

If you recall, I said this upthread:

you can already bring a gun up to the baggage check-in counter *without* a license (in a case) in order to fly with one, so allowing licensed carry when dropping off or picking up passengers doesn't really change the security situation in or around the airport.

That's *exactly* what this murderer did. No CCW here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. The 'right' of California to enact homophobic laws thanks to Proposition 8 was overridden.

In your estimation, was that also a bad thing?

[stone space]

17. I truely don't understand Zimmerman supporters.

I can't get to this post from around the same time frame from DU's Virginiamountainman (the old DU archives appear to be down), but he hit some of the same themes. It was entitled "Alienated Rural Democrat", and discussed how the gun issue drove lifelong Dems in his state of WV out of the party, including his own family.

A- Zimmermann broke no current laws, acted reasonably and Florida laws relating to any of his actions need no changes

11 (48%)

Abnredleg, shedevil69taz, Surf Fishing Guru, blueridge3210, Straw Man, Waldorf, virginia mountainman, mog75, Duckhunter935, tortoise1956, mackdaddy


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172164331

What exactly is it that you want us to know about Zimmerman supporters?

That they feel alienated?

[Hoyt]

27. Mos understand the support for Zman stalking, intimidating, and shooting a skinny unarmed Black kid.

They just don't want to admit the truth.

[Nancyswidower]

29. Except that didn't happen did it Hoyt?

[Hoyt]

33. What didn't happen?

[Nancyswidower]

48. "..stalking, intimidating, and shooting a skinny unarmed Black kid."

That didn't happen...but you know that.

[Hoyt]

78. Damn sure did. Lots of gunners think that's OK, but it happened.

[Nancyswidower]

87. No actually it didn't per the testimony in the trial....which I saw every minute of.

[Hoyt]

88. So Zman didn't follow Martin, scare him and shoot him? You gunners amaze me.

[Nancyswidower]

89. Followed maybe...scare..no..shoot yeah.....don't slam a "white hispanics" head into the

side walk...bad crap can happen.....You grabbers amaze me....your total ignorance of what happened in the case...
Hoyt you never fail to amuse me with your total ignorance of facts in the Zidiot-Martin case...and I know you won't debate me on it here....we did that on DI.....I handed you your ass...you had to make sock accounts

[Hoyt]

90. From Matin's friend's testimony, he was clearly scared. You were likely too busy making fun of her

to notice.

[Nancyswidower]

91. EXCEPT...the phone records showed her a liar....she got caught lying

....here is the testimony Hoyt....I can can do this minute by minute....

[Hoyt]

92. She clearly said Martin was scared of the guy stalking him. You support gunners, even

Last edited Sat Dec 3, 2016, 07:50 PM - Edit history (1)

gun traffickers for racist militia like the Aryan Nation.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial/

[Nancyswidower]

94. "of the guy stalying him.."....shall I post the Cross where she's caught in THAT lie?

You really want do do this again with me Hoyt....?

I've got ALL night to show minute by minute testimony you are wrong....
Shall we do this again?

[Hoyt]

96. Why don't you. Fact is you believe gunners like Zman who shoot unarmed Black kids and get away

with it. You support people like Zman, and will contort the truth. I bet you contributed to his defense.

[Nancyswidower]

98. I call him Zidiot...I do NOT support him as we've discussed on DI....and you know that.

Your pap crap of people supporting Zidiot is because you can't support YOUR grabber crap.
You lose constantly...because of your distortions.....and fake accounts...can't forget that.

[Hoyt]

102. You clearly support him and similar gunners. LMAO --Talk about fake accounts.

[Nancyswidower]

118. Nice try CTA.....

[Nancyswidower]

28. stoney....you know better....you really do.

No one is a Zidiot fan or supporter....do we support laws...yep. ...absolutely.

You've been at this for a long time...and have failed. It's not about Zidiot...a jury found him not guilty...of the crimes he was charged with...trying to label us with his idiocy gets you no where.

Old crap you are bringing up...a person that hasn't posted here in HOW many yrs....?

[stone space]

80. The people on that list are self-identified Zimmerman supporters.

No one is a Zidiot fan or supporter....do we support laws...yep. ...absolutely.

In order to put themselves on that list, they had to agree with ALL THREE assertions:

(1) Zimmermann broke no current laws

(2) Zimmerman acted reasonably

(3) Florida laws relating to any of his actions need no changes

Old crap you are bringing up...a person that hasn't posted here in HOW many yrs....?

The OP brought up the old post by a self-avowed Zimmerman supporter, not me.

And that time is measured in hours, not years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172200907

[Nancyswidower]

86. They are supporters of LAW....probably every one of them..like me, watched the trial.

You don't like the laws that applied....and you hate armed self defense more, I get that.

You link has ZERO do do with supporting Zidiot.....has EVERYTHING to do with supporting the LAW that was applicable in the Martin case.

[jack_krass]

24. Thank you for the excellent OP and the truth. Prepare to get hammered with

All the stereotypes you just so thoughtfully disproved. Let me also predict that race will be interjected into this thread, and somehow you will be proven to be a "racist"

[benEzra]

54. Ha, you are psychic.

One post down from yours and 25 minutes later, the ZOMG GUN OWNERS ARE RACISTS!! card came out. We could take bets on how soon the penis card will be played.

Typical gun control conversation, as seen on Facebook/Twitter/forums:

Gun owner: I think mentally competent adults with clean records should be able to lawfully own and use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed civilian firearms under .51 caliber, plus shotguns.

Gun control advocate: Racist penis-compensating rural hick fucktard NRA dupe.

Gun owner: The FBI says rifles are used in less than 270 murders out of nearly 14,000 each year.

Gun control advocate: NRA-talking-point-spewing ignorant racist ammosexual scum.

Gun owner: You know, telling 80-100 million people you hate them every election isn't a good election strategy.

Gun control advocate: That's what all you racist penis-compensating bloodthirsty gun humpers say. Oh BTW, please vote for my favored candidate, kthanxbai!

[jack_krass]

59. Lol, one of my fav posters. Not sure if that one is an antigunner or is mocking rabid antigunners

But always a fun read

[stone space]

76. Why do open carry gun nuts bully Latina students like Ana Lopez when guns are allowed on campus?

[benEzra]

81. I think *that* is a perfect example of how the gun control movement has lost its way.

She isn't protesting the nearly 14,000 murders every year; she's protesting licensed, discreet carry by the peaceable and nonviolent, who are statistically far less likely to engage in aggression than the population without CHLs, or even police officers.

And in so doing, she reveals precisely how the gun control lobby feels about training, background checking, registration, and licensure; they hold it, and those who submit to it, in abject contempt. That hurts, not helps, her cause, by showing that the gun control lobby will not abide any middle ground or compromise. If you want to understand the push that is taking Vermont-style licenseless carry nationwide, there's one big reason for it.

And no, she wasn't protesting open carry; she was protesting licensed concealed by openly carrying a dildo and making derogatory insinuations, to provoke reactions. Doing so is her First Amendment right, and if she genuinely got the reactions she was trying to provoke (setting aside the cui bono question), then it would show that there are unfortunately childish personas on both sides of this discussion.

Ultimately, the gun control lobby does itself no favors by sinking her message to the level of childish culture-war playground taunts rather than rational debate. But namecalling, demonization, and penis jokes comprise pretty much the entire pro-restrictions argument these days.

She could always go compare the violence rate of CHL holders to the broader population without CHLs, or to police officers...but that would reinforce the pro-licensure side, not the CARRY LICENSURE IS JUST LIKE SEX TOYS side, so we can't have that...

[stone space]

82. Seriously? You're blaming the victim here?

[benEzra]

83. Did you read my post?

In this thread so far, I have yet to see a cogent argument from you as to why your policy proposals (rifle handgrip bans, magazine bans, curtailing carry licensure) are rational. All I see is attempts at guilt by association, namecalling, and playground insults.

The same tactics that helped alienate swing-state voters and put Trump in the White House.

I disagreed a lot with Paul Helmke et al with regard to violence prevention strategies, but at least they tried to make a rational, civil defense of their legislative positions. Apparently the gun control lobby is no longer capable of that.

[stone space]

84. My policy proposal is to stop gunbullying Latina students. (nt)

[Nancyswidower]

93. Stop.....you policy is to eliminate guns.....just say it...Free yourself, be honest with us

and the world.
You bullshit here about Zidiot...a hispanic male....yet claim to be about stopping bullying of Latina students....

Begs the question...why is any Latina more protected than any other....I know why...one used a firearm to not get his head crushed on a sidewalk

[stone space]

95. Do you support this sort of gunbullying being deployed against Latina students trying to study?

[Nancyswidower]

97. This meme of yours has been debunked...but I want you to explain to us...

What is "gunbullying"........more of your made up crap....what is "gunbullying"...because some of us own a firearm or 10 and you don't like it....is "gunbullying".....poor put upon stoney....not going to change....we 2A supporting Dems are going to keep our arms....your pissy moany crap will have no or next to zero bearing....whine all you want sparky..you can't get them

[stone space]

99. Why do you feel the need to make personal insults?

your pissy moany crap will have no or next to zero bearing....whine all you want sparky..you can't get them

I just asked you a question about the gunbullying of Ana Lopez.

Do you support such gunbullying or do you oppose it?

Ana Lopez is just a student trying to study at a state university.

How can she be expected to concentrate on her studies when she's being gunbullied by an open carry activist like this?

[Nancyswidower]

119. No...she isn't...".being gunbullied by an open carry activist like this?"

Last edited Mon Dec 5, 2016, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a gun grabber commercial and totally unsubstantiated claims after the fact....you keep linking to this video...proves SQUAT.....I notice you ran right to Ask The Admin after this deal..yet to be answered....I'm thinking they will read everything here and giggle at you...like most of your posts....

I'll bet you either get no reply...or better yet...one you hate...that discussion in this section of DU allows differing views...actually we welcome them...and I've only been here for a yearish.

[Marengo]

120. Why is her race relevant?

[Hoyt]

26. White wing love of gunz and racism are closely related in this country.

[Nancyswidower]

32. My girlfriend is AA...going for her carry permit this month....

Is she "white wing".....you crack me up as much here as you did at DI....never fail to amuse no matter how many ID's you tried to make.
That's why you were banned...repeatedly trying to "sock" the joint

[Hoyt]

34. An old Gungeoneer returns. LMAO.

[Nancyswidower]

50. I have NO clue what a "Gungeoneer" is....BUT

I know you couldn't argue gun laws if Bloomberg wrote your script for you....

[Marengo]

85. Who is it? Or, should I say what was the former user name?

[SoCalMusicLover]

45. Next You're Going To Tell Me The U.S. Had Slavery nt

[jmg257]

56. Why do so many Dems like guns? Can I assume its not racisim?

[Hoyt]

79. Take a critical look at posts in Gungeon, that'll give you a clue.

[SoCalMusicLover]

30. Just Suck It Up, And Get Over It!

This is Fucking America, and our forefathers put it in the Constitution. And besides, it's the one thing that actually unites Democrats & Republicans. Heck....Democrats like guns as much as Republicans. Everybody loves a good gun, and 1 is not enough. There are so many different kinds. Sometimes you just need an AR-15, and it is your right as an American.

So forget about the guns! It's costing us elections. Accept them, and don't speak out against them.

[DonCoquixote]

31. why not leave it to the states

One) people cross state lines and go to places like my beloved Florida to smuggle guns. Hell, there is a reason Florida guns keep showing up at places like Columbine. Al Qaeda even recommended this trick.

Two) there is a difference between a hunting rifle and a weapons that was made to KILL PEOPLE. If anyone is taking an ak 47 or a glock to shoot deer, they are awful hunters.

But of course, we have to appease a certain demographic, now matter how many bodies people up, and people will say "you better gimme everything I want" which of course, is what gun ownership in this country is truly about.

[SoCalMusicLover]

35. Chicago Is Perfect Example

It pisses me off when the gun people say..."What About Chicago? They have strict laws, and still have a huge gun problem."

Well guess what, bright guy? Maybe.....just maybe....those guns were all brought in from another state. There is this new invention called an automobile. And since guns are so ingrained in this country, there's no telling really what's out there. And clearly the solution is to keep making more and more.

I guess for some, guns are like a good cd or dvd. You start out with Led Zeppelin 4, and before you know it, you're collecting cd's left and right.

And while 1 gun might be useful for say.....killing. Another gun might be useful for something completely different. Or not.

[jmg257]

38. 1400 people are responsible for 80% of the gun violence in Chicago, and the police KNOW

who they are...they have them on a list.

Figure there has to be a way to deal with the people actually responsible for the mayhem. Other locales have figured it out.

[jmg257]

39. Hunting is a very small reason to own guns these days...only 15-18% of the 80-90 million gun owners

hunt.

For what it is worth, 5 rounds of .308 from of a bolt action Remington 700 are just as lethal for killing deer as 5 rounds out of an AR-10.

Both would be great choices for hunting (most Glocks, not so much).

[SoCalMusicLover]

44. For Protection?

Protection from all the other guns out there.

Again, the only solution is more guns, not less.

I guess I could have learned how to use a gun when I was younger. Gaining years of practice. So I could be enough of an expert, that I would be able to blow away a criminal who broke into my house. A criminal who was likely experienced with using a gun. Hopefully my gun would be better than his. And hopefully I have to time to get it from it's safe and secure spot in time.

[jmg257]

49. Yep - self-defense is the number one reason these days.

2013 "A national survey finds that nearly half of gun owners (48%) volunteer that the main reason they own a gun is for protection..."


Yes, you could have grown up with them. Certainly makes it easier to be comfortable and proficient with them, but it isn't absolutely necessary.
Practice (and some natural coordination) definitely makes a difference - attitude too. Shooting is a blast besides.

You would also have a great advantage in your own home - it is your turf. Chances are VERY good you know it better then some fucker climbing through your window. Also yes - your gun should definitely better then his - one you know inside and out and are confident with. Shotgun, handgun, semi carbine - all viable choices. Besides not sure how much typical criminals actually practice.

Understandable guns for defense are not for everyone - a person's got to know their limitations.

[SoCalMusicLover]

57. Again, What Confuses Me...

If you are responsible, or perhaps just because you have others around, you keep the gun locked in a safe.

Won't you have to retrieve it and be ready in time, before the criminal who picked your front door, has opened it and pointed his gun at you?

And if you were ready, won't the presence of your gun make it more likely that he will react in a way which you might not be able to predict, whereby you end up missing him, but he in turn shoots you dead?

I guess I look at the alternative side when it comes to guns. Where some might think it's a way to protect yourself from harm, I view it as an item which is capable of causing death, and while perhaps not 50/50, still probably increases the chance of my own death. And maybe even due to my own, or someone else's, negligence.

[jmg257]

63. Guns can certainly be in a safe. Or on your person if so inclined. At night you can keep

one within reach - they have these quick bio safes to hold handguns etc.

It is also easier to keep one handy if you don't have kids and the like. Lock it up when you go out etc. (and/or CCW it)


If you have a gun on you or "within reach", odds are pretty good you will have the drop on someone coming through your door - from a position of cover besides. Of course you might miss, but no reason to expect it. (I really doubt I would miss.)

It does take responsibility and thought...anything to up your odds in your favor.

The alternative is to do nothing, and have little to no chance to defend yourself against bigger, stronger, armed, more, etc.


I think, like so many things, it may come down to experience. SO many people grow up with guns. HAVE used them all their lives. DO practice a lot. HAVE given thought to safety AND defense and practicality. HAVE used them as part of a career.

They are not always convenient, not always practical, not always worth the effort. But they can be nice to have around just in case.

[benEzra]

75. Thoughts...

I don't own a gun in lieu of other security measures, but in addition to them. The gun just means that I have the option to threaten or use countervailing force in the unlikely event of a home invasion. A gun isn't a substitute for decent doors/locks, a dog if permitted, a pepper spray (Kimber Pepper Blaster is a good option that can safely be used indoors), lighting, situational awareness, security system, etc. It's not either-or.

Owning a gun is certainly a deeply personal choice, and certainly depends on one's own experience/competence with them, attention to detail, etc. I personally am a competitive shooter and have been an avid shooter for 30+ years (I'm 46 now). I'd certainly recommend training, but one of the nice things about shooting a martial art is that it is a lot of fun.

As to choice of firearm, a handgun can be kept holstered on one's person, especially if one jumps through the hoops to qualify for a carry license, and habitually carries. For sheltering in place while calling 911, a long gun (small-caliber carbine like an AR, or a shotgun) is superior in a lot of ways (more precise, more powerful), but a lot less portable.

[Nancyswidower]

58. That's entirely delusional....

Both 1 and 2...
Let's just do 2..."..there is a difference between a hunting rifle and a weapons that was made to KILL PEOPLE.".....Really? What would be the difference? My hunting firearms are just as capable of killing a human as they are to kill a deer, a moose, a duck, a squirrel....Yet my arms have NEVER killed a human.
My AR has killed pigs in Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana and south end of Pennsylvania..... but NEVER killed a human in any state...sun of a bitch...it must be defective.

[benEzra]

72. I think you are under some misconceptions here...

There is a difference between a hunting rifle and a weapons that was made to KILL PEOPLE.

Bolt-action hunting rifles were originally designed to kill human beings at extreme ranges. The Winchester Model 70 deer rifle is a refined Model 58, which is a lightly refined German Mauser infantry rifle.





Then there's the Remington 700 bolt-action deer rifle....also known as the M24/M40 Sniper Weapon System used by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps.

If anyone is taking an ak 47 or a glock to shoot deer, they are awful hunters.

If you can take a deer with a Glock, you are one of the best hunters to walk this earth. A deer rifle is six times as powerful as a Glock 9mm and has ten to twenty times the effective range.

Actual AK-47's are a 10-year Federal felony to possess in the United States, unless you are either a government employee/contractor or have special authorization to own one of the rare pre-1986 collectibles in private hands. If you want one, expect to wait about six months for your Federal paperwork to clear, and expect to pay between $15,000 and $20,000.

If you mean a non-automatic civilian AK-47 lookalike, then those are actually decent deer rifles, for smallish deer, and they'd require a bit more skill to get closer since an AK is only about half as powerful as a bolt-action. But since most gun owners are nonhunters, it's kind of a moot point. I used to compete with a Romanian SAR-1; it's basically a self-loading .30-30 Winchester with a detachable magazine. They don't fire any faster than a pistol or any other civilian self-loader.

I personally am a nonhunter and shoot competitively with an AR-15, which is just a centerfire .22 and not considered powerful enough to hunt with in many states.

But of course, we have to appease a certain demographic, now matter how many bodies people up, and people will say "you better gimme everything I want" which of course, is what gun ownership in this country is truly about.

What, exactly, does putting people in cages for having the wrong shaped handgrip on their rifle have to do with preventing bodies from piling up? Rifles are the least likely of *any* class of weapon to be used in a murder.

Murder, by State, Types of Weapons, 2015

[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 13,455
Handguns............................ 6,447 (47.9%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,648 (19.7%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,671 (12.4%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,544 (11.5%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 624 (4.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 269 (2.0%)
Rifles................................ 252 (1.9%) [/font]

And banning handgrips that stick out doesn't change the lethality in the slightest.

[samir.g]

40. Gun control did not lose us this election

[benEzra]

70. It lost at least 6 senate seats in 2014, and it was a big factor in several swing states this year,

including my own. I live in North Carolina, where we just elected a pro-gun Dem governor, even as the *same* voters rejected a Dem presidential candidate.

Do you honestly think gun rights weren't a factor in PA, FL, or MI either?

You can ascribe it to whatever factors you want, but Clinton lost by 180,000 votes here, and there are ~2+ million people in this state who would have been directly affected by the Third Way's proposed gun/mag bans, out of ~4+ million gun owners overall. And her demonization of nonhunting gun owners in the primary did not go over well here, nor did the constant social-media bashing.

[SoCalMusicLover]

47. I Sometimes Wonder How Other Countries Can Exist

Without widespread availability of guns. Do they not realize what they're missing?

It must be a cultural thing. Like how we don't care much for soccer, and they don't get the American game of football.

[jmg257]

52. "Gun Culture" is certainly a thing. Grow up with them, depend on them even, they are no big deal.

[benEzra]

67. You realize "assault weapons" are common in Canada and legal across most of Europe, yes?

Canadians and many Europeans can own rifles that would get them hard prison time in California. That's what those of us out here in "flyover country" would like to avoid.

Keep your bans in CA if you must, but please stop trying to impose them on gun owners that don't live in CA.

[stone space]

100. Your thread has devolved into a defense of George Zimmerman and Brett Sanders.

And your OP even opened with a positive mention of a Zimmerman supporter.

Do you understand now why gun advocates scare us?

Do you understand why we wear safety pins?

We're scared.

We don't feel safe around you.

[pablo_marmol]

105. Oh FFS ss.......you're the one that always brings up Zimmerman.......

......regardless of the actual subject of discussion and the good faith of the author of the OP! Then you have the audacity to claim that the thread "has devolved" into a Zimmerman defense. How utterly pathetic.

"We're scared. We don't feel safe around you."

Your irrational fears can't concern us. We've pointed out to you time after time -- with unimpeachable law enforcement stats -- that concealed carry permit holders are rarely involved in gun-related mayhem to no avail. You are the pitch-perfect example of why Democrats sustain needless losses.

Edited to provide support of claim:

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

[stone space]

107. Are you going to pretend that Zimmerman is not being defended here in this thread?

Are you going to pretend that Ana Lopez is being attacked here simply for being a victim of Brett Sanders' gunbullying.

"We're scared. We don't feel safe around you."

Your irrational fears can't concern us.

And mocking our fears is cruel in the extreme.

Especially after the absolute horrors of this election.

Really.

You just had to go there, didn't you?

[pablo_marmol]

108. I refuse to engage with you any further.

"And mocking our fears is cruel in the extreme."

Do you really think that nobody realizes how dishonest you're being?! I calmly state that your irrational fears don't concern me, and you define that as mockery. As I've said -- pathetic in the extreme.

Done with you now. You've proven that you're far too dishonorable to dialog with.

[stone space]

109. You are mocking us for being afraid after the bloodiest election in Iowa's history.

"And mocking our fears is cruel in the extreme."

Do you really think that nobody realizes how dishonest you're being?! I calmly state that your irrational fears don't concern me, and you define that as mockery. As I've said -- pathetic in the extreme.

This is a level of cruelty that I just don't understand.

You know how fresh the wounds are from this election.

Please do go away.

We don't need your fucking guns.

And we don't need you rubbing salt in our wounds, and gloating at our fears and at the suffering that your guns have caused us here in Iowa in this election, either.

[Marengo]

121. This violence is directly related to the election?

[wyldwolf]

101. As more and more people bury their children with patched up holes in their chests...

... we'll eventually win this issue.

[pablo_marmol]

106. Keep telling yourself that as you continue to believe in that mythical "epidemic of gun violence."

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

[wyldwolf]

113. I will because mass shootings have become more common

No myth here

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-have-become-more-common-in-the-u-s/

[pablo_marmol]

115. While mass shootings are *obviously* tragic........

........they make up only a very small percentage of the overall murder rate by guns. So by all means, keep on shrieking and pushing voters to the GOP! Great strategy!

[benEzra]

116. Rifle homicide is *decreasing*, not increasing, from 442/yr in 2005 to 250/yr now.

Rifle murders have steadily decreased over time, and are now hovering around 250 per year out of 13,500 murders annually.

Rifle Homicides, 2005-2015
2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285
2014: 248
2015: 252
(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2015, Table 20, Collated)

Most states report either zero or single-digit rifle murders in any given year. Modern-looking rifles likely account for about half of that, say 125 to 140 annually. To put that into perspective, 722 people were died in 2014 riding bicycles, 1500 were killed with knives, and 50,000 to 100,000 died due to alcohol. Which makes it doubly ludicrous that the gun control lobby's top legislative priority for a quarter-century has been rifle-ban legislation.

As to "mass shootings", that depends on how they are defined. A shootout between gang members that sends four people to the hospital is a "mass shooting" according to the "mass shooting tracker"; by that definition, the NYPD engages in "mass shootings" with some regularity, and they also occur regularly in Australia and around the world, both by LE and by criminals. The FBI's definition is a lot more realistic, but produces less sensational numbers.

I'm not convinced that the gun control lobby even cares about mass shootings except as a PR tool, because the measures they propose---legislating rifle handgrip shape, criminalizing ergonomic rifle/shotgun stocks, criminalizing post-1860s magazine capacities---do not address mass shootings in the slightest. Requiring all rifle stocks to look like this:



will save exactly zero lives, but will turn tens of millions of peaceable citizens into felons. The fact that we can barely have a civil discussion about *that* fact without people trying to derail the thread says a lot about the debate as it currently stands.

[hollowdweller]

152. Until the same amount fear mass shooting as much as fearing losing their jobs

Things won't change.

[aikoaiko]

103. Zealously advocating for more gun restrictions always hurts us in the general election.

And when Hillary said that, "Bernie Sanders prioritized gun manufacturers' rights over the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook" I'm sure that cost her votes in the midwest. Maybe it helped her in NY and CA where it was unneeded, but it was a disgusting thing to say.

[stone space]

111. Bernie sabataged his own primary campaign with the PLCAA. And I say this as a Bernie supporter.

He's grown some since then, but it was in fits and starts during the primary. A step forward, and a step back.

Without the PLCAA hanging around his neck, he could have been a formidable force against Hillary in the primaries.

[aikoaiko]

114. The Phyrric victory goes to the anti-RKBA crowd.

I think Bernie played that wrong. He should have accused HRC of trying to bankrupt the gun industry

Nevertheless, Clinton's pro-restrictionist stance typical of Democrats didn't help her earn the win in the rust belt.

The Phyrric victory goes to the anti-RKBA crowd.

[Nancyswidower]

122. The problem is..you don't know what PLACCA is....Bernie gained votes up here for supporting it.

You have zero clue what PLACCA fully entails....and you won't even attempt to research it.

[pablo_marmol]

104. Copy/pasted from another post:

Semi-auto firearms are not complex mechanical devices. When a political party repeatedly, over decades tells stupid/obvious lies about the nation's most popular rifle there's bound to be consequences. How do we expect our fellow citizens to side with us on climate change when we hang on to the pathetic "assault weapon" lie? (If you understand how an internal combustion engine functions, you understand how a semi-automatic firearm functions.) And as I've mentioned before, if you think that the Rust Belt wasn't aware of what has happened recently in California and Massachusetts ---- you're dreaming. Period. People don't just get irritated when culture war is directed at them, they get angry. And they express that anger at the polls.

I believe that Hillary was overconfident. She never dialed back her rhetoric approaching the general, and was spouting "gun control" rubbish days before the election. Sure didn't help us.

Edited to add:

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/30/9-ways-hillary-clintons-gun-control-plan-could-cha.aspx

[flying rabbit]

110. k&r

[stone space]

112. The party hasn't told anybody to "vote non-Democrat, or else".

Will the party continue to present owners of nonhunting guns with the choice of "vote non-Democrat, or else"?

You tell me. And the other tens of millions of gun-owning nonhunters like me.

You're still allowed to vote Democratic. Nobody us telling you not to.

Where did you get this?

[benEzra]

117. "Vote for me, and I promise to put you in prison unless you conform to my beliefs"

comes across as "Don't vote for me", regardless of whether the issue is censorship, or infringement of reproductive rights, or anti-LGBTQ measures, or attempts to compel gun owners into giving up their guns. Whether that is expressed as people staying home on election day, or leaving that portion of the ballot blank, or voting third party, or whatever, the net result is lost votes.

John F. Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt would be booed out of the tent today, whereas Michael "Stop and Frisk" Bloomberg is the hero of the Third Way/DLC. That is profoundly sad.

[Hoyt]

126. Most Trump supporters are white wing racists, as are most gun nuts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

128. And most anti-gun nuts are bigots, so what's your point?

[Hoyt]

129. I admit it, when it comes to ignorant racist gun nuts, I am bigoted against them

[benEzra]

130. See, smearing the quarter of Dems and third of independents who own guns like that...

is part of why it's so hard to have a civil conversation on guns. Gun control advocates don't often debate things like rifle handgrip shape legislation or carry licensure or pre-1860s capacity limits on their merits, they mostly just call us names and tell us to STFU.

The problem with that is that when gun-owning Dems/indies get shut up and kicked to the corner, it turns the discussion on guns into an echo chamber dominated by the loudest voices calling for prohibition. And within that cloister, impractical, quixotic, or downright counterproductive positions start to sound reasonable and end up dominating the party's message on the subject.

Case in point, there is a thread right now in the Guns and RKBA forum wherein a gun-control advocate is seriously advocating the banning and confiscation of all self-loaders with detachable magazines. That's 75% of civilian guns right there, without even getting into the bans on pumps and high-powered bolts and revolvers that the gun-control lobby keeps demanding. Case #2, the NY SAFE Act. Case #3, the magazine confiscation just passed in California. We're talking legislation that even Europe and Canada have rejected, but you think it's not only reasonable and achievable in the United States, you think it's relatively noncontroversial.

As to the slinging of racial stereotypes, a concealed-carry licensee was murdered a few months ago by an out-of-control police officer, and the killing made national news. And it doesn't even seem to click with the namecallers and mudslingers that the victim was one of the CHL holders and gun owners that you gleefully demonize day in and day out, because he had the wrong color skin to fit your stereotypes of what a gun owner looks like. Your leaders speak up in support of Michael Bloomberg putting tens of thousands of innocent African-Americans and other minorities in Rikers for pocketknives that aren't even illegal in NY, defended the killing of Jose Guerena and countless others, and defend making simple magazine possession a crime equivalent to rape or luring a child (NY SAFE Act), because "Weapons Are Evil And People Who Own Them Have It Coming", or something.

That is not only counterproductive to the cause of violence prevention---assuming you give a crap about *that*, as opposed to simply sticking it to people you dislike---but it's also damaging to the party at large.

[Hoyt]

131. I'm not concerned about someone with a gun or two at home for hunting

or self-defense. That's not a gun nut.

[benEzra]

132. Unless...

I'm not concerned about someone with a gun or two at home for hunting or self-defense.

Unless that gun is not expensive enough. Or is a hunting revolver, especially a biggish one. Or is a bolt-action that looks too modern. Or holds more than seven or ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells, or has a handgrip that sticks out, or fires bullets with the wrong color tips, or pump shotguns. And people with carry licenses, unless they are rich, famous, or politically connected, can go fuck off, or go to prison, because they are evil killers.

Those gun owners can be tossed into prison on rape-equivalent felonies because they are evil and have it coming, right?

[Hoyt]

133. Gun owners who are irrational and paranoid should be checked by mental health professionals.

[benEzra]

134. The ability to read and understand Federal and state law...

Gun owners who are irrational and paranoid should be checked by mental health professionals.

The ability to read and understand Federal and state law, the text of Senate bills, and the gun control lobby's own official press releases constitutes neither "irrationality" nor "paranoia".

And once again, instead of discussing the substance of the actual issues at hand---carry licensure, rifle handgrip shape, minuscule magazine capacity limits, forcing temporary transfers between vetted individuals to go through FFL's---you resort to namecalling and handwaving. Because to actually discuss the substance of the issue---such as whether or not it is reasonable to threaten your neighbors and fellow citizens with prison over irrelevant miscellany like the shape of a piece of nylon---would open those positions up to criticism that they cannot withstand.

A lot of Dems would not have signed on to much of the legislation the VPC et al have proposed over the years if they had been fully informed up front of the scope of those proposals (like the one in the Gungeon right now to ban and confiscate 75% of civilian guns). So you have to shut down discussion and have people act out of rage or ignorance, rather than thoughtful consideration of the benefits and downsides, including second- and third-order effects.

[Hoyt]

135. Ben, any discussion that puts you guys' gunz in a bad light is automatically shut down by gun

fanciers.

[benEzra]

138. My guns have harmed no one, and I do my part to help ensure they never will.

And rifles *like* mine are among the least misused of all weapons, as you well know.

Any discussion that *exaggerates* will certainly be engaged by people who know they are talking about, and flaws pointed out. E.g., when someone claims that replacing a protruding handgrip with a straight stock makes a rifle less lethal, or that small-caliber rifles are the "weapons of choice of criminals", or that long guns account for a large percentage of homicides, or that they are more powerful and higher velocity than "hunting rifles", or that shooting a centerfire .22 will bruise your shoulder and give you PTSD, or that rifle homicide is increasing rather than decreasing, then yes, expect that those farcical claims will be challenged.

But there has been a lot of civil discussion on this board since 2004-2005 by people with widely varying viewpoints. That's a good thing.

And the fact remains that the top priority of the gun control lobby in 2016 is *still* bans on the least misused guns, and demonization of the least violent citizens. Until that changes, pushback is a given.

[loyalsister]

136. NRA endorsed Dem lost in Mo

I voted for him, but if Democrats were to accept the Constitutional right to kill interpretation of the self entitled gun advocates demand, I would be done with them. Because Republicans dressed up as Democrats willing to apoease the NRA are still just a bunch of blood thirsty republicans.

[benEzra]

137. What does threatening people with felonies for having the wrong shape rifle stock

have to do with "right to kill interpretation" of the 2ndA?

Even if you don't like gun ownership (which I get), it would seem to be more productive to focus on actual misuse, and strategies that might actually do some good, rather than simple harassment of the nonviolent (via handgrip shape legislation, magazine bans, and whatnot).

There is common ground to be found on background checks, but that got tossed out the window in '94.

[loyalsister]

139. It's the mindset that's the problem

USAers Nugentian sense of entitlement to shoot and kill people isn't going to change, but possibly limiting the tools for it would limit how much it happens. Or, at the very least how many a person can kill within a short amount of time. Using guns designed to kill people for target shooting does not change the original purpose.

[friendly_iconoclast]

140. What mindset? The one that doesn't accept what your crowd deems to be 'sinful' as being sinful?

And as for "limit(ing) how much it happens."- it's been decreasing, as you were informed upthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2643093

Rifle homicide is *decreasing*, not increasing, from 442/yr in 2005 to 250/yr now.

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

[loyalsister]

141. The belief in the right to kill a lot of civilians in a matter of seconds

is the sick mindset of paranoid freaks who claim they need an arsenal of fast firing weapons designed specifically for that purpose, rather than a shotgun or basic handgun.
Those guns have a specific purpose by design. To advocate for them for onesself is to advocate for the next mass murderer to have access to those weapons as well.

[friendly_iconoclast]

142. An *imagined* mindset of the owners is more important than actual crime rates to you?

It seems firearms of modern design are "occasions of sin" to you and your allies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasion_of_sin

In Roman Catholic teaching, an occasion of sin is an external set of circumstances—whether of things or persons—which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.

You're probably not old enough to remember, but there was a similar movement to
stamp out the 'sin' of alcohol consumption. Tl;dr version: It didn't end well

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Call-Rise-Fall-Prohibition/dp/074327704X


While you're at it, would you be so kind as to link to any examples of someone actually
claiming a "right to kill a lot of civilians in a matter of seconds"?

I'm sure I could find an idjit or two claiming the right to indulge in cannabis at any time
and under any circumstances- and I'd rightly be laughed out of the room if I offered these foolish
yammerings as a good reason for contiuned prohibition...

[loyalsister]

143. A belief in an unconditional right to own weapons specifically designed to kill a lot of people

quickly is exactly a belief in a right to do just that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

144. Well then, take the matter up with your co-religionists and leave the rest of us alone

Your opinion of what is sinful and what is not is no basis for public policy, and such arguments
are better left to the fetus fetishists, drug warriors, and homophobes.

[loyalsister]

145. Basic human decency

demands that one have some objection at the possibility of killing people rather than consider themselves entitled to the tools to do it.

It is a difference I usually only encounter with republicans. The cousin who accidently shot his 4 yr old sister when he was 10 is one of the most screwed up people I know. My state is #2 in toddler shootings increasing as gun culture grows and this idea of a right to kill becomes more entrenched here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

146. Basic human decency demands that laws be based on their impact on the public at large

The tools you seek to ban via law are rarely used to kill- in fact, murder rates have declined
in the US at the very same time they have become a larger proportion of guns owned by
the public.

You needn't believe me- the disinterested observer is invited to peruse the actual reported
crime rates, available from the FBI here:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/

As far as appeals to emotion go, I'll relate some personal stories to you: Years ago,
one of my friends and coworkers was on his way to a side job very early one Saturday
morning when he was T-boned and killed by a drunk that had been imbibing all night.

This was twelve hours or so after I had last talked to him and congratulated him on the side
job and the extra $$ he was going to make. T was a good guy and I still miss him.

Several years later, at another company I worked at, another coworker lost both her
parents when a drunk driver hit them head on, instantly killing them and himself.

Later on, a member of my family pretty much drank himself to death, due
to undiagnosed and untreated PTSD.

I do not believe that reinstating alcohol Prohibition and/or
banning Scotch in order to fight drunk driving are good ideas.
Such ideas are appealing, popular- and generally wrong.

Better would be finding ways to reduce alcoholism and drunk/impaired driving
and to treat PTSD, not invoking animism.

[benEzra]

148. Except those guns aren't on the civilian market, and aren't the subject of proposed bans.

A belief in an unconditional right to own weapons specifically designed to kill a lot of people quickly is exactly a belief in a right to do just that.

Those guns aren't on the civilian market. You do realize that military automatic weapons are as tightly controlled in this country as 105mm howitzers and 500lb bombs, yes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Even simple possession of an M16 or an actual AK-47 (which weren't even designed for mass killing, unlike say a water-cooled machinegun) is a 10-year Federal felony without the right Federal paperwork.

You do realize that an AR-15 is a low-powered civilian non-automatic, not a military automatic weapon, yes? The original rifle that became the M16 was designed to spray 10 bullets a second when the trigger was held down. A civilian AR-15 fires exactly one .22 caliber bullet when you pull the trigger, just like any other civilian-legal .223/5.56mm rifle.

[benEzra]

147. Thoughts, at some length...

Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2016, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Using guns designed to kill people for target shooting does not change the original purpose.

Almost all hunting and target guns were originally designed for killing people, and were secondarily adapted by civilians for civilian use.

For example, the Winchester Model 70 deer rifle:



...is a very close civilian derivative of the main German infantry rifle of both World Wars, the Mauser G98/K98:



which was originally designed to kill human beings at distances of up to two kilometers, thanks to its powerful 8mm round. Captured and military-surplus Mausers became popular as hunting rifles through the 20th Century in both the USA and Europe, due to the same characteristics that made it an excellent long-range infantry rifle---power, accuracy, and reliability. Winchester eventually came out with a copy of the Mauser called the Winchester Model 58, which was later tweaked into the Model 70, that became famous as the issue U.S. Marine Corps sniper rifle in Vietnam---and the most sought-after deer rifle on the civilian market for a generation.

Likewise, this 16-shot Civil War combat rifle, the rapid-fire Henry of 1860:



after the war became the Winchester Model 1866 civilian rifle, which was later developed into the M1873 and M1894, and became the most popular hunting gun in the nation.

I personally own exactly one military rifle, a Russian infantry rifle made in 1905 that saw combat in World War I, the Finnish Revolution of 1917-1918, the Winter War of 1939-1940, and the Finnish war against the Nazis in 1944-1945. It still shoots great, and the sights adjust from 150 meters to 2 kilometers.

USAers Nugentian sense of entitlement to shoot and kill people isn't going to change, but possibly limiting the tools for it would limit how much it happens. Or, at the very least how many a person can kill within a short amount of time.

We already limit civilians to non-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns; all automatic weapons (including M16s and actual AK-47's) were restricted in 1934 and banned in 1986. We already limit caliber to .50" (12.7mm) or less, with larger calibers (like .729 caliber shotguns, aka "12 gauge&quot allowed on an exemption basis. We already restrict explosive projectiles that could kill indiscriminately. We already restrict guns easily convertible to automatic fire. And so on.

Civilians in the USA are limited to pretty much the same types of guns Canadians and many Europeans can own---manually operated rifles and shotguns like bolt-actions, levers, and pumps; one-shot-at-a-time autoloaders like the Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Tavor SAR, Springfield M1A, or M1 Garand; autoloading pistols; and revolvers. Within that subset of civilian-legal guns, there is not much difference between the shots-on-target capability of a lever or pump vs. an autoloader.

I'll also point out that handgrip shape has absolutely nothing to do with lethality; this NYC-legal and CA-legal rifle (Ruger Mini-14) is functionally exactly the same as an AR-15, firing the exact same small-caliber ammunition at the same velocity and rate of fire from the same sized magazines.



Requiring that AR-15's be modified to use straight stocks like this would not affect lethality in the slightest.

Keep in mind that rifles are the *least* misused of all weapons in killings, and the trend is down, not up. Out of the 13,500 murders every year in the USA, all kinds of rifles together account for 250 to 270 of them, or less than 2%.

Rifle Homicides, 2005-2015
2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358
2011: 323
2012: 302
2013: 285
2014: 248
2015: 252
(Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005-2015, Table 20, Collated)

Finally, even if you magically outlawed all rifles, you would not address mass shootings one iota. The Newtown murderer took a 9mm pistol, a UK-legal semiautomatic shotgun, and a small-caliber rifle stolen from his murdered mother to the school where he murdered those kids, and had he used the pistol or the shotgun instead of the rifle---or had he used a straight-stocked hunting style rifle like a Mini-14---the outcome would have been no different.

If you want to make a real dent in killing, end drug prohibition; start fighting the culture of violent gangs, not the target shooting/hunting/self-defense culture; and start looking to repair our broken inner cities. Legislating rifle handgrip shape, or trying to confiscate half a billion magazines from 60+ million people, or endlessly harassing the licensed and vetted, is pointless, counterproductive, and politically asinine.

[Blue_Tires]

159. I don't recall guns even being an issue in the race?

[benEzra]

160. Clinton made magazine and "assault weapon" bans one of her top issues in the primary.

Obama, by contrast, said in 2008 that he didn't have the political capital to pass such bans even if he wanted to. One of many differences between Obama in '08 and Clinton in '16.

Guns were a big factor here in NC, and in a lot of swing states. NY/CA style gun bans do not play well nationally, which is why they've been rejected over and over by almost every state since the early 1990s.