Publicly throw gun control under the bus to win in November

[friendly_iconoclast]

Call it the "Only Nixon could go to China" maneuver. Or the Sistah Souljah
approach if you're cynical like me.

All the camapign donations from the Joyce Foundation and its allies won't matter
a whit if Democrats do not win. After all, their money won't be going
to Republicans in any event.

Would you rather be pure on gun control and lose the White House, or swallow
your pride and be rid of the neocons?

I assert:
There are more swing votes to be won by ditching gun control than
'true believer' votes lost to the Greens/Naderites over the issue

[Beregond2]

1. In the first place,

the gun nuts would never believe it. They have been brainwashed for too long into believeing that the Dems want to take their guns.

In the second place, the vast majority of Americans favor gun control, so how would this benefit the Dems in an election?

[krispos42]

2. Democrats do want to take away guns.

Right now it's just "certain" types of guns based on arbitrary cosmetic characteristics. But gun-control Democrats get orgasmically happy every time a poll comes out that shows gun ownership down by a half percentage point or whatever. Or when any law, no matter how smart or stupid, effective or pandering gets proposed.

Regarding your second point...



Okay, consider this poll taken back in 2004.



Now, if nationwide about 40% of households have guns in them, that means that roughly 40% of people have bought guns.

Which means that 60% of the general population HASEN'T bought a gun.

Which means that 60% of the population has not gone through the process, has no theoretical or practical experience with the laws and procedures regarding gun laws, and likely does not really understand the issues being discussed.

So then that 60% is really basing their opinons on the wonderfully informative corporate main-stream media's various products. So how much weight should be given to these polls?

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Gun laws have gotten *less* restrictive recently in Minnesota and Ohio

And they're damn near non-existent in Vermont. You can't claim them
as red states with a straight face. "Shall issue" laws are now in force
in most states, presumably with the consent of the populace.

The NRA has done many things, but running Jedi mind tricks on the voters
of Vermont and Minnesota is not in their repetoire.

A question. What percentage of Congresscritters who voted against the "assault weapons"
act of 1994 lost their seats, and how many kept them? (assuming they ran for reelection).

[Carrieyazel]

5. I'm sure Al Gore believed this, and then realized how wrong he was.

I think if you polled swing voters, you would get many that do not favor strict gun control. And that's what's important to winning generals: the swing voting crowd

[SteveM]

7. Hmm, "gun nuts:" looks like we got a look at your hand...

Before the mid-60s, the Democratic Party took NO STAND one way or another on the Second Amendment. Only after vast quantities of editorial from MSM, murder-mouthing social commentary by anti-gun propagandists and downright lousy constitutional scholarship did many pro-2A folks get "brainwashed" into believing that the Democrats would indeed take guns away from folks. So, we're only talking about 30+ years of prohibitionist sentiment within the Democratic Party. I believe the mess made in my lifetime can still be undone in my lifetime.

I can't believe you do not see the potential benefits of junking this contrived (and rather recent) issue when one Bill Clinton says it cost Al Gore the election in 2000, and cost the election of scores of Democratic hopefuls in Congress and various legislatures.

The AWB is a virtual litmus test on the issue of gun-control. How do you stand on that issue?

[Carrieyazel]

4. Obama could never do it. He once supported banning handguns.

And his record is like that of most urban politicians. Very strict gun control because that's what his constituents wanted.

I'm certain that the NRA has an onslaught of specific attacks on Obama waiting in the wings. They did serious damage to Gore early in 2000, who foolishly spent much of the primary battling with Bill Bradley over which one had the strongest record on gun control.

His gun control record is a major vulnerability for him, and he seems afraid to address it head-on.

[SteveM]

8. Obama has spoken out on the issue...

declaring 2A protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That's a start. Remember, John McCain has a lousy record on gun-control as well. It wouldn't take much for Obama to end-run him on this issue. Frankly, Obama should follow the advice of some in this forum and get to the range, not for some photo op, but to learn about various firearms so that he may develop a learned position on them. The purpose of this would not be to "win over" the gun vote, but to chip off a large chunk of it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Ok true believers, say my scenario comes to pass

Would you:
1. Vote Green?
2. Stay home?
3. Tearfully sob "I got no place left to go!" (like Richard Gere in An Officer and
A Gentleman). Realize that the country needs a Democrat in the Oval Office, blow your nose, wipe your face off and vote Democratic anyway?

[Sony65]

9. Toughie

1 or 3 depending on other positions. I would never do 2 if I was able to cast my vote.

[aikoaiko]

10. An explicit moratorium on guns bans would go a long way to help Democratic leaders.

[rdenney]

11. No way am I going to agree with that. Thousands of Americans dead because of guns on the streets....

...would we let up on drunk drivers, who kill 17,000 people every year?

Hell no!

We need to keep our base and part of that is keeping Americans safe from gun-violence.

[aikoaiko]

12. Would you ban cars to reduce drunk driving?

I think not. I understand the need and desire to reduce grave and lethal violence. Gun use is a big part of that, but gun bans from Democrats only energize the gun owning moderates of both parties to vote in their interests.

If we take guns bans off the table, then we can enter a new era of discussing how one can use them.

[rdenney]

21. Of course we ban drunk drivers from driving already. So yes, we can take the car out of the drunks'

hands, and guns out of the hands of those people who are a menace with them on the streets.

[old mark]

13. I keep safe from gun violence

by carrying my own gun.

I know you don't like guns.
You have the right not to own one.
Don't deny me my right to free choice .

FWIW, I have been refering to myself as a gun nut for several decades.
Get the Democrats out of the gun control business-allow freedom of choice.
Have a great day.

mark

[Help_I_Live_In_Idaho]

15. Guns don't kill people - violent culture kills people

Take away their gun - they will run you over with their car, Take away the car, they hit you over the head with a baseball bat. Gun control is stupid. I'm a raving liberal and I think.

[maxidivine]

16. Why not imprison violent criminals then?

Mass indiscriminate shootings, while they dominate media when they happen and dominate any discussion about firearms for years afterwards, are incredibly rare. Far more rare than the mainstream media would have you think, far more rare than Paul Helmke would have you think, and far more rare than Sarah Brady would have you think.

If 90%+ of murderers have prior arrest records, then does it not make sense to you that maybe we should be punishing our violent offenders just a little more harshly? Maybe give them a sentence and stick to it, instead of releasing them months or years ahead of time? Don't you think that would have a much more beneficial impact on our murder rate than just going after law-abiding gun owners?

[old mark]

17. max-if I may be so bold-

Recently, a Philadelphia police sergeant was killed by several bank robbers.
Each of these men had been released years early from prison, and immediately got together to rob a bank, killing a cop in the process.
If their sentences had not been reduced, they would all still be in prison and the officer would still be alive.

There has been no media coverage of this, only of the mayor's call to outlaw "assault weapons", even though the weapon used was not an assault rifle by definition.

Politicians are all FOS by trade, but never more so, in my opinion, then when using a murder to advance their own agenda while failing to take any responsibility for the real problem.

mark

[iverglas]

19. help me out

the mayor's call to outlaw "assault weapons", even though the weapon used was not an assault rifle by definition.

Of course, it also wasn't a pumpkin pie or a stapler.

It was an SKS that I have seen described in news reports as having a "banana clip".

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20080516_A_sergeant_s_last_moments.html

Floyd, Lucke said, had the SKS rifle in a cardboard box and put it in a shopping cart with his hand at one end of it. He walked and stayed in the produce section of the store as Cain and Warner robbed the bank, authorities said.

... He "turns towards the one police officer, charges him, trying to pull the trigger, but the gun jams," Gilson said. " ... then (police are) able to shoot him and take him down. He was going to kill another cop. There's absolutely no doubt about it. If that gun hadn't jammed, there would have been two police officers killed in the line of duty that day."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/19001939.html

Videotape played at the hearing showed Floyd and Cain disguised as Muslim women in burkas and Warner wearing a dreadlock wig and dust mask inside and outside the store during various stages of the heist about 11:30 a.m. on May 3. Floyd, acting as lookout, wheeled a shopping cart with a box holding a semiautomatic rifle with a banana clip.

It is my understanding that it would therefore have been prohibited by the defunct "assault weaspons ban" -- an SKS with a detachable magazine.

http://www.shtfblog.com/follow-up-on-best-guns-for-teotwawki/

“Banana clip” is a term almost exclusively used by those who are ignorant of firearms - and most often the anti-gunners. A “clip” is not the same as a magazine, and most people who have any knowledge of firearms already know that, and don’t misuse the term “clip”. The correct term is a “30 round magazine”.

I suppose it would have had to have something else too -- like a pistol grip, which I kinda suspect this one may have had.

So ... it wasn't an "assault rifle". Big whup. Would it have been covered by the "assault weapons ban"?


Politicians are all FOS by trade, but never more so, in my opinion, then when using a murder to advance their own agenda while failing to take any responsibility for the real problem.

What responsibility has the mayor failed to take for decisions regarding parole, which you apparently consider to be "the real problem"?

[rdenney]

23. SKS rifles with a removable magazine ARE considered assault weapons in NY. n/t

[maxidivine]

33. NY considers EVERYTHING an "assault weapon" NT

[rdenney]

22. We need stronger laws to put people who use guns in prison for many more years...

then if they had chosen not to use a gun in the commission of a crime, yes.

[pipoman]

25. The term "aggravated" generally implies a weapon

was used during the commission of a crime, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, etc. I don't really know why commission of a crime using a gun and commission using a knife should carry a different penalty.

[rdenney]

28. Guns are capable of killing many more people from a distance with only the pull of a trigger...

knives are not. Simple how that works, isn't it?

[beevul]

29. That makes them IDEAL for self defense. N/.T

[pipoman]

31. That still doesn't explain why a crime committed with a gun

or a knife or any other deadly weapon shouldn't carry similar sentences. The knife wielding criminal is likely using a knife because a gun wasn't available to him. Sentences for all aggravated crimes should be long and sure IMHO.

[maxidivine]

34. That is almost on the same page

Except that you are basing your thoughts on whether or not they used a gun in the commission of a crime. I think that our violent or gang-affiliated criminals should be slammed harder no matter what they used. I don't care if it was a strongarm robbery, a stabbing or shooting up a rival gangs neighborhood, there are certain crimes that generally indicate that the criminal is not going to learn, and will be worse than before if given a short prison sentence, since that will usually embolden them by inflating their 'street cred' or whatever.

I just don't think that simply having a weapon is the right variable to hinge the extended sentences on, since people can and are killed or left crippled by beatings quite frequently.

[virginia mountainman]

18. The "base"?!?!

Hell, you should have seen our base...BEFORE the push for gun control in the early 1990's...

A small but vocal group of Democrats, and "Trojan horse" rethugs, got us to leave the "base" the base did NOT leave us....Time to get those folks back.

[solinvictus]

20. So you're comparing gun owners to drunk drivers?

Well, at least you're honest about how you feel about us.

[rdenney]

24. In a manner of speaking. Some of you are irresponsible when handling your guns just like drunks.....

cant handle themselves with a bottle of booze.

[beevul]

27. "Some of you"

"Some of you are irresponsible when handling your guns just like drunks..."


How many of "us" would that be?


How many of the 80 million gun owners would fall under "some of you"?

[Help_I_Live_In_Idaho]

14. This is True

The dumbest thing we could do is try to remove guns from people. Half the culture loves guns. Take em away from psychos and criminals but realize ,like drugs, there will be black market.

Forget gun control and win the center right back - Correct

[pipoman]

26. Can't count on the "center right"

for anything. I am more concerned about winning back rural and blue collar Dems whose interests have been completely blown off by the urban and self proclaimed intellectual Dems.

[tucsonlib]

30. Amen, my friend.....

Anyone who would cast his or her vote based solely on a single "hot-button" issue like gun control is a fool. A dangerous, ignorant fool.
I hope you have thick skin, my friend. The loonies are out in force this morning.


:toast:

[beevul]

32. I have a better idea...

Publicly throw FURTHER gun control under the bus because its the correct thing to do.

That will garner more votes than doing it strictly to gain votes.

[TPaine7]

35. Precisely.

Publicly throw FURTHER gun control under the bus because its the correct thing to do.

With a few minor caveats, I agree with this. There may be some legislative things that can be done to make it harder for criminals and the insane to get weapons.


That will garner more votes than doing it strictly to gain votes.


This is pure, pristine truth.

People are tired of Democrats "faking it." If Obama donned hunting gear, he would look as ridiculous as Kerry and others. If he made an honest statement, my respect for him would double. Something like this would be great:


I hate the idea of ordinary people having guns, I especially hate the idea of ordinary citizens going about armed in our inner cities, but that's what the Constitution demands. I will do my utmost to keep guns from criminals and the unfit, but I must take an oath to obey the Constitution as written. I intend to honor that oath.


He doesn't have to like it; he just has to obey it.