Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Simple visual that clarifies why the Assault Weapons Ban renewal [View all]AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)88. Here's (1) a simple visual to clarify a problem and (2) a Bill Clinton analysis
With regard to the 1994 Congressional election, in Bill Clinton's recently-released book "My Life," he wrote:
"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)
"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)
"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)
For those who are opposed to the private ownership of firearms for self-defense or other lawful purposes, it may be worthwhile to act in a way consistent with Democratic values, learn from experience, and listen with respect to the concerns of gun-owning Democrats and gun-owning independents.
The alternative is to (1) show disrespect to gun-owning Democrats and gun-owing independents and (2) resurrect an issue which contributed to the loss of the Democratic controlled House in 1994 after having such control for 40 years.
Maybe, of course, there are people who are politically smarter than Bill Clinton, former Speaker Tom Foley, and former majority leader Dick Gephardt.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
243 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Militia definition - 5. A word determined by the Supreme Court in the Heller case to not limit an
AnotherMcIntosh
Aug 2012
#100
"Pro-controllers.....can never wait to bathe in the blood of the victims to push their agenda."
Tommy_Carcetti
Aug 2012
#143
I disagree. Most of those posts were put into GD by people who rarely, if ever,
shadowrider
Aug 2012
#234
Are they shooting silhouette targets that represent people, or something like these guys?
Hoyt
Aug 2012
#8
IPSC and USPSA use "scored" silhouettes. A, B, & C scoring zones.
OneTenthofOnePercent
Aug 2012
#150
Well, I'll tell you the same thing I tell other people who make this argument...
Scootaloo
Aug 2012
#181
You know, the "target practice" argument reminds me of something when I was a kid
Scootaloo
Aug 2012
#209
Pop quiz, which of these guns in CA legal (where there is an assult weapon ban)
Travis_0004
Aug 2012
#16
Okay, I'm stumped - what's the legal difference between the two lowers? (nt)
Posteritatis
Aug 2012
#21
I thought one of them might have been missing some critical notch or something
krispos42
Aug 2012
#192
Did you post that with a quill pen or a hand-cranked printing press?
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#81
Are all you lot this stump-ignorant? Per the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#191
I *could*, if I didn't mind breaking the law. I do, so no Green Mountain arms sales for me.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#201
Admit that the only way to end debate about AWs is to ban all semi-auto long guns
krispos42
Aug 2012
#47
Unless they are precluded from military service by Federal law, yes. But so are YOU.
Edweird
Aug 2012
#71
Which he bought legally, despite being dishonorably discharged from the military and having well
Erose999
Aug 2012
#135
1) It wasn't a DD, and 2) Do you *really* want to go the 'watch list' route?
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#137
One recent photo that proves the dishonesty (or ignorance) of the cartoon in the OP
slackmaster
Aug 2012
#14
Yes but not nearly as noble as letting home invaders have their way with your wife and children
spayneuter
Aug 2012
#175
Can you point me to the bit in the ill of Rights that says it's okay to walk into cinemas
sibelian
Aug 2012
#166
There Is No Shame In Ignorance, Because The Ignorant Are Too Stupid To Be Ashamed...
WillyT
Aug 2012
#31
It Is Both Ignorant And Stupid To Own An Assault Rifle... There Is Absolutely NO Reason...
WillyT
Aug 2012
#39
LOL !!! - He Wasn't Drunk At The Outset, But He Was Having Difficulty With His Gal...
WillyT
Aug 2012
#59
Mira here is a short video, that explains EXACTLY what the AW ban actully did..
virginia mountainman
Aug 2012
#24
You Forgot To Mentioned The Injured... Or... "Shot, But Not Dead"... They Don't Count ???
WillyT
Aug 2012
#61
Classy. Another example of *why* gun control is the success that it is...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2012
#86
If you substitute "NAACP" for "NRA" your comment will closely resemble many I see posted on
spayneuter
Aug 2012
#222
GWB. *. Was. Is. and forever will be the asshole of assholes. Now with that out of the way
Mira
Aug 2012
#65
"President Bush says he will sign a bill renewing the assault weapons ban if Congress passes it."
hack89
Aug 2012
#125
Here's (1) a simple visual to clarify a problem and (2) a Bill Clinton analysis
AnotherMcIntosh
Aug 2012
#88
Explain the difference between hunting with a ar platform with a 5 round mag and a 100 yr old mosin
rad51
Aug 2012
#103
Are you 120 years old? Semi-auto guns have been used for hunting for a century
NickB79
Aug 2012
#126
I don't believe for an instant your "era" was all about single-shot firearms. (nt)
Posteritatis
Aug 2012
#155
And the AR round has less recoil and is lighter and more compact and less expensive. Intermediate
Erose999
Aug 2012
#144
Hands, feet, knives, and baseball bats are all multi-purpose tools. An Assault Rifle is a unitasker.
Erose999
Aug 2012
#157
"some sort of firearm" isn't what this thread is about- "assault weapons" is the subject at hand.
X_Digger
Aug 2012
#230
If that's how you want to limit the conversation, then there's a question begging to be asked.
Tommy_Carcetti
Aug 2012
#232
Well, obviously an AR-15 *could* be used for sport or hunting purposes. It is a gun, after all.
Tommy_Carcetti
Aug 2012
#237
No! NRA propaganda! Impossible! The only reason prohibition doesn't work is that
Egalitarian Thug
Aug 2012
#105
Simple visual that clarifies why the Assault Weapons Ban renewal is a no-brainer.
Egalitarian Thug
Aug 2012
#106
Funny, you can buy an AR-15, AK-47 and other semi-auto "assault" guns in Canada.
rDigital
Aug 2012
#149