"I'm not voting for you... You are going to take my guns away..."

[WCGreen]

I remember that rebuke as if it were yesterday...

I was running for the State Senate as a Democrat in 1996...

I was campaigning at a Union Hall, glad handing and introducing myself to all the delegates who had gathered at the local AFL-CIO hall...

Not three months latter. I lost badly to a Newt Gingrich style Republican who focused on all the hoary talking points we have been discussing here on DU for the past week...

Ten years before that, the same distinct, a Working Class district, was overwhelmingly Democratic...

At that time here in Cleveland, we still had a pretty vibrant Union Movement based in the Trades and the UAW, Steel Workers and such...

Generally, they voted Democrat, or at least that is what the leadership told us...

But as the decade of the 90's wore on, Democrats started to lose more and more in traditional areas where Union Workers had settled...

We all started to hear the above rebuke more and more...

You could see the sea change here in Ohio, Republicans swept all the state offices when Cuyahoga County and Lorain County, among the many, stopped delivering large majority votes to the Democratic Party...

If it hadn't been for Dennis Kucinich’s strong ties to the Labor movement and Jimmy Dimora's constant working with Unions here in Cuyahoga County, the Democratic Party would have been in deeper trouble than it was...

The national party had captured the State Party and the workers in the normally strong Democratic bastions were not at all responding to the National Party message coming from DC through Columbus...

Now, the Dem's are poised to recapture a big chunk of the State Government here in Ohio...

the question now becomes this; are we going to let the same people who ruined the State Democratic Party all through the 90's continue to dictate a broken agenda that all but ignores Working Class heroes?

Are we going to be able to talk to working men and women about better jobs, more access to quality education and affordable health care without letting the republican's once again paint us into a corner separating the middle class from the only party willing to fight for their future?

With Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown, there is hope….

[wtmusic]

1. How did Brown end up on the wrong side of the torture issue?

:shrug:

[WCGreen]

4. I don't know....

All I really know is Dennis wasn't and he is my congressman...

[OzarkDem]

12. He didn't

Let's trust him and see how this works out.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Someone told him it would pass anyway and get him elected to the Senate

It's disturbing to say the least because I think we really could and should have challenged this one, but Brown will still be a good senator.

[wtmusic]

16. That logic works equally well to appease moderate Republicans

"I knew the bill would pass, so I voted against it to keep the left happy."

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. If we win, we can do the same thing to Republicans

"Why did my Republican senator vote for the minimum wage increase"
... because it was going to pass anyway and he wanted to be reelected.

The world's a lot different when Democrats run things.

[eridani]

55. Baldfaced political calculation, that's how

He didn't want to give DeWine's campaign a free ad, and (along with Ford in Tennessee) figured that it was going to pass anyway without their votes against. Hurts more coming from Brown, though.

[JeffR]

2. The "take my guns away" drivel has more to do with right-wing radio

than some supposed left-wing agenda.

[WCGreen]

5. I never said it was a left wing agenda....

It was DNC and DLC talking points or the lack of responding to those "right wing" talking points...

[JeffR]

6. Simply meant that the party didn't have to move one way or another

when there was a shrill devil's chorus urging people to accept every stereotype the RW forced on Democrats. Under Clinton the party moved more to the center than ever before. In response to this, he was the subject of a prolonged witchhunt and was decried as a pinko Rasputin by every regressive windbag on the airwaves.

[WCGreen]

7. They didn't want to accept them....

They just wanted a more than a "me too" response....

[JeffR]

8. The Democratic Party just didn't take hate radio & RW grassroots

efforts seriously for a very long time. Actually, not until these things had already bit the Democrats squarely in the ass.

[benEzra]

18. That unfortunate meme was a result of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch...

a lot of its proponents didn't realize that they were trying to ban half the guns in people's gun safes.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[Erika]

3. I'm a life long democrat owning and possessing guns

Isn't it Rudy and Bloomberg who are against guns?

[GoneOffShore]

9. I live in Philadelphia

I don't own a gun and don't want one.

I also don't want to allow more than one gun purchase a month here. Nor am I in favor of concealed carry permits by anyone other than law enforcement officers.

I'm also in favor of rigorous background checks for purchasers and inspection of storage facilities for weapons, especially in urban areas. (I lived in the UK in the 70's and that was the standard).

That being said, I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, either for hunting or self protection, especially in rural areas.

[Craftsman]

78. That being said most of the gun owners I know would not vote

for someone who said those thing. love it or hate it the gun debate has ben for the forseeable future won. By the NRA.

[gorfle]

100. Thank goodness!

>love it or hate it the gun debate has ben for the forseeable future won. By the NRA.

And I'm greatful for it! Now imagine the NRA as a bullhorn for the Democratic party instead of (usually) the Republican party!

[WCGreen]

10. I have nothing at all against people owning guns....

Besides, that battle was lost long ago...

I answered that I was pro gun, but they still shut down after they saw the "D" nest to my name..

[benEzra]

21. Unfortunately, for a lot of people in the '90s, Dianne Feinstein was the voice of the party

on the issue, by default.

The 1994 Feinstein ban was THE issue in the pro-gun community at the time (and still is, generally speaking, even though it died in '04).

[Irreverend IX]

57. The problem now...

Is that many of the top anti-gun voices of the last decade are still in prominent Democratic positions. And some of the rising stars, like Obama and Pelosi, have gone on record saying "no one should have an assault weapon" and similar things. Two things need to happen to counteract this. Democratic leadership should make a concerted effort to educate lawmakers about the facts on gun violence (for example, "assault weapons" are rarely ever used in crimes) and about the consequences of anti-gun statements. Second, the party needs to find some new "stars" who vocally support gun rights in the media. If the party can make a big public turnaround on the gun issue, with reporters talking about "a new day for the Democrats" while the Republicans are busy gutting the Constitution, we'll pick up tons of votes. I really don't understand what motivates politicians to take anti-gun stands when gun-grabbing has proven to be such an utter loser issue.

[mrcheerful]

11. The fear is that the gun freedom lovers are under the impression they still have a right

to over throw the american government by force. They do not realize that right was lost when Nixon passed a law stating that the over throw of america was not only illegal, but also anyone that plotted such an over throw was a criminal and could be arrested for talking about the over throw of the government. Under shrubs homeland security rules, any american that tries to take back the government by force is guilty of terrorist actions and can be locked up without due process of law. To be honest an over throw of the government using your deer rifle is almost laughable at best, but somehow the ones who believe this non-sense are also under the belief that the US military will join them in the over throw. I'm just amazed that the gun nuts are not aware of the Nixon or shrub laws that take away the right to over throw the government yet they believe its the democratic members that are trying to stop them from having guns. Slap me in da head as to me, thats some very very stupid non thinking going on in the country and damned if I can make it sound inteligent.

Opppppppps, the Fear is that democrats are going to take their guns away and stop them from over throwing the government.

[WCGreen]

15. It was really put forth by Lincoln back in 1861 when the

people of Maryland threatened to do battle with Northern Troops on their way to defend DC...

[benEzra]

20. No, the problem was that gun-404 politicians

got on national TV and promised to ban people's nonhunting-style carbines and restrict replacement parts for their handguns. Problem is, 80% of gun owners aren't hunters...

The DLC decided to make banning nonhunting-style rifles and shotguns the de facto top legislative priority in the early 1990's. That was not only clueless, it was political suicide.

The "Dems'll take yer guns" meme is slowly dying a well-deserved death because the party leadership has dropped the issue since 2004. That's a good thing. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is dead, and it needs to stay dead.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[WCGreen]

22. There is no point really in gun control now....

The country is awash in guns....

Anyone can get a gun if they try just a little...

So what is the point...

Mandatory sentances for crimes committed with guns is about the best we can do now...

[MGD]

30. Right, and people who defend the right to free speech or to have an abortion

without government interference are just paranoid freaks whose interests and efforts are laughable too. Those ignorant defenders of civil rights. And how about those idiot nut jobs opposed to allowing the executive office the authority to eavesdrop on American citizens and imprison without due process? What a bunch of "non-thinkers". Hahaha :sarcasm:

[WCGreen]

35. there are about ten guns for every person living right now in the

US...

Do you really think we are going to confiscate 3,000,000,000 guns...

[MGD]

45. That's entirely beside the point

The selective defense of our civil rights by certain members of this party is absolutely appalling. You have no argument against George W. Bush's gutting of the Constitution as you are just as bad.

Do you really think we are going to confiscate 3,000,000,000 guns...

No, I don't. But I do think your inane logic will make criminals out of millions of law abiding men and women. I think it will also lead to future Republican victories and I think you'll create a climate of constitutional warfare where the two sides attempt to fuck one another over by taking away the rights that each side holds dearest. In the end, we'll all be fucked equally. I'll be honest with you, I care more about my right to bear arms than your right to have a same sex marriage or an abortion (neither of which are explicitly guaranteed in the constitution unlike my right to bear arms); however, in the spirit of sound politics and in the best interest of this country, I support your rights to engage in either of those activities with the same energy that I support my pet cause. I think there are plenty more Democrats like me and I think we deserve a little fucking recipricocity here because, let's face it, this party will become extinct if we walk away just as much as if you walk away.

[WCGreen]

46. What the fuck are you talking about...

[MGD]

48. Go back and read it again slowly if you don't comprehend.

[WCGreen]

49. You obviously didn't get what I was talking about...

you know, opening up the party to more than the two or three marquee issues the GOP tags on us...

And you know what, people here on DU can and do disagree without being snarky...

[MGD]

51. You're right, I didn't get that

Out of your response to my post. If it is your position that we, as Democrats, should defend the second amendment with the same intensity that we defend every other amendment, than I honestly apologize for my snarkiness.

[Greyhound]

63. You've overstated the number of firearms in the US by a factor of :>10.

220,000,000 is the last number I saw. More than enough, but hardly 3 billion.

ETA; the entire African continent has about 1/4 the number of firearms that the US has.

[mrcheerful]

38. You better go back and look at what Nixon signed into law under the disguise of

law and order. Then read the homeland security act and both parts of the patroit act, then tell me how american citizens armed with a deer rifle will over throw the government. When they will be caught up in sweeps to rid amerika of domestic terrorists under all of these protection laws.

[MGD]

47. Not one of my gun enthusiast friends wants to overthrow the Government.

I don't even know what you're arguing about and, furthermore, I spend no amount of time worrying about being swept up in government sweeps to rid America of terrorists.

[gorfle]

76. Here's what's amazing...

>I'm just amazed that the gun nuts are not aware of the Nixon or shrub laws that
>take away the right to over throw the government

What's amazing is that you think that a "law" can stop people from overthrowing their government.

I mean if things got bad enough to overthrow the government through violence do you think all the partipants would suddenly say, "Ooops, golly guys, sorry, we'd like to overthrow this government, but we can't, 'cause, you know, there's a /law/ against that sort of thing!"

[grasswire]

13. I read about that flood in 1994, too

I read today that 1.5 million Democrats crossed over on election day itself because of the gun issue. This enabled the Gingrich victory. Only 28 percent of Americans had ever heard of the promises in the Contract on America. It was the guns.

[benEzra]

19. Yes.

This account from DU's virginiamountainman was probably fairly typical:

Alienated Rural Democrat

Gore lost TN and WV on the gun issue in '00. Had he won those two states, he'd have won the presidency without Florida. (And the gun issue was HUGE in Florida as well; they don't call it the "Gunshine State" for nothing...)

[Jed Dilligan]

23. When the last gun-grabber leaves the party,

it will be a great day. It will be a day of victory for common sense over coercive social legislation, the same broad interest that brought us the abortion ban, antimiscegenation laws, the War on Drugs, Prohibition, involuntary commitment (up to the 1960s) for gays, "rebellious" girls, and eccentrics, sometimes including ECT and lobotomization, and now all this "let's get rid of tobacco" bollocks.

It doesn't work. It--just--doesn't--work.

If you want to bring down homicide, give young poor urban men something else, something more interesting to do. Build communities. Create jobs. Improve education. Legalize drugs.

Banning this or that carbine, establishing some new weird database, will not get between a single bullet and a single victim. This I am sure of.

[Paladin]

24. And When The Last Gun Activist "Democrat".....

....quits trashing Democratic officials and shuts the hell up about the non-isssue of firearms policy, it will be cause for rejoicing.

[Jed Dilligan]

25. I'm hardly a gun activist

Not really a personal issue for me since I don't own guns.

I just despise the general principle of assholes who think the government should be protecting citizens from themselves. It's the stupidest formula for society ever invented, and I hope to see the day when the asses who support it are purged from any major or relevant party.

[sendero]

34. Been saying that..

... since I got here.

Gun control legislation is good for ONE THING, shifting votes from D to R.

People who think you can pass a law to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals are as full of it as any Republican. The criminal thinks "yeah, I'll shoot someone, but gosh darn I sure don't want to break a gun possession law". Yeah. Right.

[rhett o rick]

26. Doesn't matter what you say. These people have very limited realities

It is easy to sway them. Pander to their fears. They also love to be tough. Not that guns did them any good at ruby ridge. These people are the "gullibles" easy prey for unethical religious and/or political hacks.

[DancingBear]

33. My oh my

Elitist much?

"these people"

"gullibles"

"limited realities"

And we wonder why we carry the label of elitist around our necks.

Here's a clue: "those people" were and once again MUST be the core of the Democratic Party if it is EVER to hold true to its FDR ideals and again become a true alternative to what we see in politics today.

They are dying for a little truth and honesty from this party, and the last thing they need or want is a cup of Starbucks thrown at them from a passing car that pretends to care.

Either keep your coffee to yourself - or help others to get their own.

And remember - they probably find your realities extremely limited as well.

They just might be right on that score.

Damn.

[Greyhound]

64. Thank you for pointing it out. All we need to win, and to keep winning,

is for every Democratic legislator at every level to remind themselves every day;

1.) Prohibition doesn't work, no matter what you call it or how you try to mask it.

2.) Government's job is to facilitate cooperation between contesting parties and get out of the way.

That's all it takes. The mantra of good government should be, you do not know better than they what is best for them, ensure the maximum of individual liberty and get out of the way.

[rhett o rick]

92. Apparently I did a bad job of presenting my case. There are currently

about 1/3 of the US that still believes in Bush. I bet that even if Bush started executions in concentration camps there would be 15 -20% of the population that would support him. These are the people I am talking about. I know some. Some say that the democrats will take away their guns and that is enough for them. Some other say their ministers told them that God wants them to vote republican. These people were never democrats and will never be. They do not, i repeat, they do not want "a little honesty from this party". These people don't know what the Bill of Rights is and are proud of the fact. I personally know people that don't care how much evidence you present them they will not waiver from the hard right. If these people think I am an elitist, then so be it. They also think God wants Bush to be King.

[Lindacooks]

27. Waaaaahhh! I can't get it up without my guns!!

Sheesh; those people make me sick.

[MGD]

28. I feel the same way about people who equate defending civil rights with impotence

Do you insult people who defend the first amendment with equal hate amd vitriol. How abut homosexuals fighting for the right of euqal representation under the law?

[Lindacooks]

29. Oh grow up.

It's common knowledge that rabid gun lovers are insecure - haven't you seen the cartoons with a gun taking the place of private parts? Or did I hit a nerve? Seems like it.

And how dare you compare my belittling gun lovers with trying to undermine the Bill of Rights? I'm for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA - which is NOT the way the second amendment works in this country.

[MGD]

31. Why don't you wise up instead? nt

[AJ9000]

32. I wonder if Jefferson thought people should own firearms? Here are

some of the things he said:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

[Lindacooks]

36. Sorry, those 'arguments' mean nothing against AK-47s and cop

killer bullets, and the thousands of gun deaths a year in this country that HE COULDN'T FORSEE.

And I'm sick to death of these straw men arguments that some people throw up. They can't debate the actual issue - so instead they claim that I'm against ALL of the amendments. How stupid.

[AJ9000]

37. And if you live in a rural area in the South where it takes

law enforcent an hour to respond to a call, how will you protect yourself and your family against armed criminals?

And are you aware many poor rural people wouldn't eat meat if they didn't hunt?

If guns are out-lawed, only criminals and the government will have them. Law abiding citizens will be out of luck.

[mrcheerful]

40. And just how often does that happen out in the sticks compared to what

city dwellers deal with 24/7? Yet, we are supposed to let law enforcement handle things when cops are being taken off the streets and in some areas they won't even go into after night fall? It can take up to an hour, 2 blocks from the police station, for police to arrive, if they even show up. And trust me, 30 teen agers carrying mac 10's is a lot more likely to happen in your front yard in the city then out in the country side. BTW, even if you could shoot back, your out numbered and out gunned so you lose.

[AJ9000]

43. You're really bolstering my point - you can't always depend on

law enforcement to protect you.

"BTW, even if you could shoot back, your out numbered and out gunned so you lose."

Not necessarily. If you're in a good defensive postion with cover you can resist superior force assuming that you're outnumbered/gunned. Fact is most criminals quickly flee once they realize they are facing armed resistance.

[mitchleary]

39. Speaking of strawmen

AK47? Did you know fully automatic weapons have been illegal for over 50 years?

I am also curious as to what you mean by "cop killer bullets"? A Pellet gun will kill a cop or anyone else for that matter. I am just curious what makes a bullet a "cop killer" bullet?

I am ready to debate this issue with you.................

[mrcheerful]

41. Armour piercing ammo. They are called cop killers because vests won't stop them.

[mitchleary]

44. Armor piercing eh?

Do you know a round from a rifle that goes over 2500 fps will penetrate body armor? The kind the cops wear can be compromised by a standard .223 or .308 round. Those are standard hunting rounds. The armor piercing round myth is a bunch crap created to make people think guns are more dangerous than they really are to cops.

Actually if you were going to be shot a, harder bullet may just pass through and not cause as much damage while a softer one expands and does much more damage. That is another issue though.

Same goes with the term "assault weapon". An AR15(semi auto version of the M16) fires the same round as a remington 700 hunting rifle. The difference is looks and perception. Both can cause the same amount of damage.

[MGD]

50. A typical bullet proof vest is defeated by most any jacketed spitzer type bullet fired from a rifle

You need a level IV ceramic plate or better to be safe against rifles and those are not commonly employed. "Cop Killer" bullets were actually teflon coated brass jacketed bullets which were produced by law enforcement agencies under the assumption that the increased lubricity of the teflon would allow them to defeat harder targets like windhields and car doors. They didn't and, what's more, they never killed a single cop and they were no more capable of defeating a BPV than any other jacketed bullet fired from a high powered rifle. They were, in other words, a scare tactic created by gun grabbing nazis to justify increased gun control.

[benEzra]

61. Armor piercing handgun ammo was banned 20 YEARS ago...

and is totally irrelevant to the gun issue in 2006. The 1986 law also covers all rifle calibers up through .308 Winchester.

Legislative history here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html

Non-AP rifle ammunition (even soft lead tipped hunting bullets) will go through Kevlar like Saran Wrap, though. Kevlar vests are made to stop handgun rounds only; to stop rifle rounds, you need NIJ Level III or IV hard armor, not Kevlar.

[Lindacooks]

66. I'm not debating this issue with anybody.

When gun nuts can justify the thousands of people killed by guns in this country every year, then I'll debate.

Until then, you lose.

[benEzra]

68. "I'm not debating alcohol prohibition with anybody"

"when alcohol nuts can justify the 50,000-100,000 people killed by alcohol in this country every year, then I'll debate. Until then, you lose."

What's the difference--except that alcohol kills more people? (The 100K/year figure is from the CDC, but I suspect it's high by 50 percent or so.)


Law-abiding gun owners aren't the problem. Your man Bloomberg says that 90% of murderers in NYC have prior criminal records.

Lawful, responsible firearms ownership in this country is NOT going away. My wife and I lawfully own guns, and intend to keep them, as do ~80 million others. Until you accept that, *you* lose, because nothing changes.

Want to talk about background checks for private sales? Ways to reduce gunrunning? Ways to discourage gun theft? Or would you rather just continue to bash responsible gun owners instead, while pretending that cop-killer bullets weren't banned in 1986 and that automatic weapons aren't tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act?

[AJ9000]

69. Ms Cooks, you're ignorant of firearms and your mind is closed. And

you and Mr Green the thread starter should understand how important this issue is for some Americans (esp in rural areas for reasons I've already explained.)

It was not just Republican talking points, but certain Democrats' positions and rhetoric that did them in on this issue in the mid - late 90's.

If you enjoy Republican leadership, then keep trying to restrict law abiding citizens' access to guns. Then we'll continue to lose for what is a bad cause anyway.

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison

[Craftsman]

79. Until the party loses that anti gun attitude you will see rethugs

win. It is as simple as that. This issue is the biggest loser we got.

[mitchleary]

81. Hmmmmmmmm

You said you were ready to debate..........

So what is your answer to the countless deaths from auto accidents?

My guns have hurt little more than a sheet of paper.

[MGD]

52. double post

[MGD]

53. ++++++++

"And I'm sick to death of these straw men arguments that some people throw up."

And I'm sick to death of both political parties picking and choosing which constitutional rights they will support and defend. And I, for one, am not accusing you of being against all of the amendments, just the ones you don't agree with which is, IMO, just as reprehensible and, what's more, if you have ever bitched about GW's disparaging of your various rights, it makes you a complete hypocrite.

"Sorry, those 'arguments' mean nothing against AK-47s and cop killer bullets"

An AK-47 (in America) is a semi automatic rifle with less power than the average deer rifle. Fully automatic AK-47s are not authorized for ownership by citizens without special government controls and I have already debunked your cop-killer argument (actually, it was debunked 20 years ago).

"They can't debate the actual issue"

You are using the long ago debunked argument of cop killer bullets in your debate. It's clear who can't debate the issue.

[Irreverend IX]

56. It's funny...

There were some seriously destructive weapons available even back in 1776. Mortars, bombs, artillery, cannons... the Founders could have included language in the 2nd Amendment to forbid civilian ownership of any of those things, but they didn't. In fact, some citizens of the day owned fully-armed warships, including John Hancock, who was wanted for piracy by the British. The newly established US government never made any attempt to deprive even the most heavily armed citizens of their weapons.

[mrcheerful]

58. That all changed under republican leadership during the 20's and 30's

So go research when and why the ATF was formed. Just another republican lie when they say they support the 2nd admendment, which is really funny when you look at their track records.

[benEzra]

60. WHICH ARE >>ALREADY RESTRICTED

Sorry, those 'arguments' mean nothing against AK-47s and cop killer bullets, and the thousands of gun deaths a year in this country that HE COULDN'T FORSEE.

AK-47's are TIGHTLY controlled in the United States by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and possession of one without Federal permission (BATFE Form 4) will get you 10 years in Federal prison.

"Cop-killer bullets" were banned in 1986 by a law gun owners supported.

I don't expect you to be pro-gun, but at least get your facts straight.

[Irreverend IX]

54. Haven't you seen the cartoon...

That shows Hillary Clinton wearing a UN helmet standing on Lady Liberty's corpse? Does that "prove" that Democrats are waging an evil campaign to destroy America? Life must be interesting when you believe everything you see in political cartoons. Anyway, for me at least, shooting and swaggering masculinity are totally disconnected. Firing a gun accurately requires intense concentration; you have to control your breathing and body mechanics and focus your entire being on that tiny distant point where you want the bullet to go. Anger and other strong emotions will do nothing but throw you off.

[benEzra]

59. Geez, talk about ignorant...

It's common knowledge that rabid gun lovers are insecure - haven't you seen the cartoons with a gun taking the place of private parts? Or did I hit a nerve? Seems like it.

And how dare you compare my belittling gun lovers with trying to undermine the Bill of Rights? I'm for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA - which is NOT the way the second amendment works in this country.

And how many non-repub gun enthusiasts do you know personally? Are they all that way, or do you just hold to that bigoted stereotype because you've been TOLD to view gun owners that way?

FWIW, my wife is originally from Cambridge, Massachusetts and grew up in New England, has a B.A. in English, writes poetry, studies medieval history for fun, and has an I.Q. around 140. She's also one of those gun enthusiasts you hate so much.

My gun-owning sister double majored in mathematics and engineering from NC state and works as a professional engineer.

Me, I'm a very secure Gen-X, colleged educated professional with glasses and a goatee with a B.A. and some master's work in English and literary criticism, who plays the guitar, doesn't own a pickup truck or a camo outfit, and is dad to a special-needs kid.

Keep your damn projections to yourself, please. (And before you repeat that too widely, you might want to look up what Freud actually said about weapons and sexual immaturity...)

And how dare you compare my belittling gun lovers with trying to undermine the Bill of Rights? I'm for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA - which is NOT the way the second amendment works in this country.

Read the Second Amendment again. The right to keep and bear arms does NOT belong to the militia; it belongs to the PEOPLE. Same PEOPLE as the other amendments of the Bill of Rights.

If you can't find "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment, don't complain when the repubs can't find a right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment. I believe the 4thA DOES imply a right to privacy, as Roe v. Wade holds, but it's a lot more inferential than the right to keep and bear arms.

[mrcheerful]

62. Really? Then why are convicts forbidden that right? It don't say a thing about

anyone being excluded from the right to bear arms. In fact under the constitutional guidelines pertaining to criminals, after they serve their time they are supposed to have all rights and guarantees restored to them as american citizens. Am I saying thats wrong to keep guns from criminals? No, I'm just pointing out that everyone is for the 4th amendment with limitations on who can or can't own guns. Also show me where the 4th states that mentally ill people are to be denied the right to bear arms. This is another non-issue that the right wing and republicans use to sway votes their way. BTW, I bet no one says that criminals or mentally ill people have a right to bear arms.

[benEzra]

67. So is voting a right, or a privilege that can be restricted at whim?

since felons don't get that one back, either. But we're not debating the gun ownership rights of felons, but the gun ownership rights of people who have NEVER abused that right, namely my wife and I and everyone else who owns guns lawfully and responsibly. Neither I nor my wife have ever had so much as a speeding ticket.

BTW, felons are SUPPOSED to be able to appeal to get their 2ndA rights restored, and the legal mechanism exists, but Congress de-funded it some years ago in one of their "tough on criminals" moods, and no one is trying to change that as far as I know.

To address your broader point that some restrictions exist on the 2ndA (doesn't apply to convicted felons, doesn't apply to automatic weapons, etc.) means it's not an individual right--no, it doesn't. Similar restrictions exist for the First Amendment (can't possess or distribute child porn or snuff films, license required for broadcast, etc.), but that doesn't mean that the First Amendment isn't an individual right.

[mrcheerful]

72. Only if said convict wasn't convicted of a violent crime. Just because some states convinced voters

to suppress the vote by taking away convicts the right to vote, doesn't mean that all states did. I happen to live in a state where convicts are allowed to vote. Sorry, was in another forum talking about the 4th amendment and got confused, I know its the 2nd amendment dealing with a right to bear arms. One of the problems I have with the way government changed in the 20's and 30's is rights were trampled on just as they are being trampled on today. The republican party has convinced people under the age of 80 that some rights are only privileges and not rights. GW is trying to do that with right to free speech and the right to privicy. We have strayed off the course of a free people for over 100 years and everyone expects government to take their side we are the losers because we lost the ideal of public servents and put leaders in their place.

[benEzra]

74. I think we may be on the same page here, then?

I support ALL of the bill of rights. I believe that the First, Second, Fourth, AND Fifth Amendments all recognize individual rights, and that they are all equally important and should not be infringed.

The fact that Dianne Feinstein only wants to infringe the Second and Fourth doesn't make that OK with me, any more than W's actions to infringe the First, Fourth, and Fifth are OK with me.

The party needs to be pro-civil-liberties across the board, including upholding the right to keep and bear arms, IMHO.

[Paladin]

83. Careful Who You Call Ignorant

Where in the hell would you ever get the notion that any aspect of the Fourth Amendment is somehow more unsettled and more subject to rank inference than the Second Amendment? Sweet Jesus, the 4th is anchored and delineated by a mountain of precedent-establishing case law, making informed consideration of the right to privacy issue possible (and allowing the 4th to be defended against rogue administrations). The 2nd, on the other hand, is virtually devoid of case law establishing its basic legal parameters, and it will remain so until the Supreme Court elects to render a comprehensive, on-point decision dealing with it (something neither side of the gun debate wants to happen, as you well know).

My opinion is that the 2nd's granting the people the right to keep and bear arms is clearly and unambiguously limited to the functions of equipping and maintaining a well regulated militia, and that history indicates that such militias died out at the close of the 19th century for lack of interest, never to be resurrected. But again--that's my personal opinion. And when it comes to the 2nd, that's all we've got right now, personal opinions. The NRA's opinion of what the 2nd means is no more valid than that of the Brady Campaign. Your opinion is worth exactly what mine is. Claiming otherwise is ignorant.....

[benEzra]

90. I was calling the personal attack ignorant, Paladin...

perhaps you didn't read the post I was responding to?

Here's the statement I was responding to:

Oh grow up. It's common knowledge that rabid gun lovers are insecure - haven't you seen the cartoons with a gun taking the place of private parts? Or did I hit a nerve? Seems like it.

That pseudo-Freudian jab is an ignorant statement, no matter how you view it (and turns Freud on his head, FWIW).

I disagree with the collective-right argument, but I was not calling it "ignorant." Please read my post again.

[Paladin]

104. Unpersuasive

I stand by my original comments.

[benEzra]

105. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing...

The exchange in question:

(Lindacook)
Waaaaahhh! I can't get it up without my guns!! Sheesh; those people make me sick.
...
It's common knowledge that rabid gun lovers are insecure - haven't you seen the cartoons with a gun taking the place of private parts? Or did I hit a nerve? Seems like it.

And how dare you compare my belittling gun lovers with trying to undermine the Bill of Rights? I'm for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA - which is NOT the way the second amendment works in this country.

(benEzra)
Geez, talk about ignorant...And how many non-repub gun enthusiasts do you know personally? Are they all that way, or do you just hold to that bigoted stereotype because you've been TOLD to view gun owners that way?

FWIW, my wife is originally from Cambridge, Massachusetts and grew up in New England, has a B.A. in English, writes poetry, studies medieval history for fun, and has an I.Q. around 140. She's also one of those gun enthusiasts you hate so much.

My gun-owning sister double majored in mathematics and engineering from NC state and works as a professional engineer.

Me, I'm a very secure Gen-X, colleged educated professional with glasses and a goatee with a B.A. and some master's work in English and literary criticism, who plays the guitar, doesn't own a pickup truck or a camo outfit, and is dad to a special-needs kid.

Keep your damn projections to yourself, please. (And before you repeat that too widely, you might want to look up what Freud actually said about weapons and sexual immaturity...)

Read my post, please. If you can't see that an ignorant, bigoted statement was made, and I called it ignorant, then you are blinded by your own cognitive dissonance.


FWIW, here was what I said about the collective-rights theory:

(Lindacook)
And how dare you compare my belittling gun lovers with trying to undermine the Bill of Rights? I'm for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA - which is NOT the way the second amendment works in this country.

(benEzra)
Read the Second Amendment again. The right to keep and bear arms does NOT belong to the militia; it belongs to the PEOPLE. Same PEOPLE as the other amendments of the Bill of Rights.

If you can't find "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment, don't complain when the repubs can't find a right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment. I believe the 4thA DOES imply a right to privacy, as Roe v. Wade holds, but it's a lot more inferential than the right to keep and bear arms.

Didn't call that mode of thinking ignorant, just disagreed with it. It was the bigoted "belittling of gun lovers" that was the ignorant part.

[Paladin]

108. Cognitive Dissonance? Not Bloody Likely

Once again, I stand by and reaffirm my original comments.

[gorfle]

77. Where is the militia?

>I'm for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA - which is NOT the way the second amendment works in this country.

That's because there hasn't been a regulated militia in this country since shortly after the American Civil War. Consequently, the right to bear arms defaulted to the unregulated militia - the people.

[MGD]

88. A large standing Army was never supposed to exist in America

Our self-defense was relegated to the people in the form of a "well regulated militia" who could, in times of need, be called up for duty. Our large standing Army is inconsistent with our founding father's beliefs (unless you consider Alexander Hamilton to be a founding father which I do not). Many of our nation's problems arise from the existence of that standing army. We would probably be better off going back to the militia idea.

[slackmaster]

94. The militia is still out there, MGD

And it is all of us.

Look it up.

Aw heck, I'll save you the trouble.

Here it is:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_311.html

[MGD]

97. I'm aware of this. The organized portion, however, is simply another

part of the large standing federal army that was never really intended to exist within the states outside of times of war. National Guard checks are cut at the federal level, not the state level. I believe the logic and rationale of our forefathers is painfully clear in this matter. The need to maintain an armed unorganized militia is also painfully clear IMO.

[gorfle]

99. Exactly, MGD!

As you know, while there is still an unregulated militia, the regulated militia spoken of in the 2nd Amendment no longer exists. The militias, regulated and unregulated, were intended to eliminate or counterbalance federal military power. There are no regulated forces that do this today.

[slackmaster]

93. If "common knowledge" is valid, why bother educating people?

Or doing scientific research?

...haven't you seen the cartoons with a gun taking the place of private parts?

Is THAT what you based your statement on?

I am humbled by the depth of your intellect.

:spray:

BTW - I'm 48 years old, own more than 50 firearms, feel very secure, and have never had any problem with sexual dysfunction.

[ddeclue]

42. Dear NRA member....

If President Bush doesn't want to respect my:

1) First Amendment right to freedom of speech, or separation of church and state or right to assemble and redress the gov't for grievances,
2) or my Fourth Amendment right to privacy
3) or my Fifth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment or self incrimination,
4) or my right to a speed trial by jury,
5) or my right to counsel
6) or my ninth and tenth amendment rights reserving unenumerated powers to the people and the states and stating that just because a particular right has not been enumerated in the Constitution that I am still entitled to it

then:

What makes you think he gives a damn about your Second Amendment right to bear arms either?


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Greyhound]

65. We will win this election because we are not them.

This gives us two very short years to prove that we get it. If we return to the nanny-state advocacy that we have supported for the last 40 years, we will lose in 2008, and we will be right back here again.

People resist and greatly resent being told that someone else knows better, especially when it turns out to be another lie.

[gorfle]

70. Guns and jobs...

On the firearms front, hopefully after our current brush with nationalism, imperialism, and, dare I say it, pending tyranny, the Democratic party will be more understanding of the reason why our founding fathers wanted the 2nd amendment.

On jobs, I think this is a place where the Democrats can gain a lot of ground. As an (ex) Republican I used to be, and still am, anti-Union, as many Republicans still are. Basically unions were great as long as businesses had no economic choice but to cave into their demands. Today, businesses do not need to do so - they just go where unions are not. Unions help make jobs flee our country.

So I don't think you are going to win many Republicans over singing the "union" song.

But here is where you will win them: Many of them, myself included, still clearly see that there is a problem with our workforce when corporations see the GLOBE as their talent pool. The answer isn't unions, but rather government that looks after the interests of its worker citizens! Even the most ardant Republican can see that any job is on the chopping block to some nation where people make pennies on the dollar.

[mrcheerful]

71. Excuse me but wtf are you talking about? Under Nixons law and order platform

it is now treason to plan or plot the over throw of the elected government of america. With shrubs wire taps any american citizen can be picked up, imprisoned without due process as terrorists for even talking about an over throw of the american government. So saying that your for the 2nd amendment because you have a right to armed resistence against the government is pure NRA hog wash.

[benEzra]

73. So you're invoking Nixon to justify Feinstein?

I'm not sure I follow you here.

Reading the works of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson is not illegal. Possession of a copy of The Federalist #46 is not illegal. Agreeing with the general principles of the Declaration of Independence is not illegal.

And none of that has jellybeans to do with whether or not the Democratic party should advocate banning more guns.

Dianne Feinstein and some other DLC'ers sucked the party into supporting sweeping new gun bans in the 1990's, which helped cost the party the House, the Senate, and two presidencies. THAT has nothing to do with Nixon or Agnew or Elvis.

Since 2004, the party leadership has realized that the ban-more-guns position is a loser, and has largely dropped the issue. THAT has nothing to do with Nixon/Agnew/Elvis either.

Gun owners in the '90s/early '00s weren't worried about what Tricky Dick Nixon did or thought or wore on Halloween. They were worried about Feinstein et al's PROMISE to ban half the guns in their gun safes. Avoiding a repeat of that debacle is the topic of this thread.

[AJ9000]

80. Amen brother. This is a HIGH PRIORITY issue for many voters. Being

from Texas, I hear this from people I'm trying to convert all the time as the reason they will not vote Democratic.

[MGD]

87. I just moved from Texas and heard the same things friend.

Here in Ohio, we're electing Democrats with strong psoitive ratings from the NRA. Gun rights are pretty big here too. One would hope that other Democrats would catch on. This issue can make us or break us.

Edit: And I see the American Rifleman (the key propaganda outlet for the NRA) is posting pictures of Nanci, Chuck, Diane, and Teddy on the front cover of this months issue with a very strong message to loosely affiliated Republicans who are thinking of converting this year. We need to break that meme, not reinforce it.

[mrcheerful]

82. The over throwing of the elected american government is illegal though, it has been since 1971

when Nixon said america no longer needed protection from its government. So far no one has put back that right. We are not talking about ideals when it comes to what Nixon did, its a fact you can no longer plan or plot or over throw the US government. The only thing you can do is vote, maybe, what with touch screen voting and the rest of the crap. Shrub has made it easier for the government to seek out those who whould plot or plan the over throw of the government. To think your going to take your .22 and over throw the government is way out there.

[benEzra]

89. I'm sure it was illegal in 1776 as well...

and as the Declaration of Independence points out, that avenue is only for the direst of situations, and is a last resort.

I don't own guns in order to "overthrow the government." I own guns because I choose to own guns. And I do not wish to see my rifle taken away just because Sarah Brady or Dianne Feinstein doesn't like the shape of the stock.

[gorfle]

75. I don't follow you...

>So saying that your for the 2nd amendment because you have a right to armed resistence against
>the government is pure NRA hog wash.

I don't see how. Armed resistance remains a possibility, and we remain able to employ it. We, thankfully, have not yet reached the point in America where violent overthrow is required.

But anyone who thinks that armed resistance by lightly armed insurgents is ineffective need only look at Iraq to see how effective it can actually be.

[mrcheerful]

84. Its illegal and if anyone tries they will be imprisoned faster then a camel jocky riding nude

through Washington DC. We lost that right in 1971. There is no longer a right to armed resistence against the american government. What with shrub wire taps armed resistence would fail.

[MGD]

86. There has never been any such right in any government including ours

No citizen has a right to overthrow his government but that has not stopped it from happening many many many times throughout history.

"Those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent protest inevitable"
John F. Kennedy

[gorfle]

98. Ah, I see...

So you think that if people get discontent with their government enough to actually contemplate ARMED REVOLUTION that they are going to reconsider because it might be AGAINST THE LAW??????

"Ooops, sorry, guys, we were going to have a revolution, but we can't because, you know, it's against the law!"

Riiiiiiight.

[BootinUp]

106. if you ever have to resort to using a gun

to defend yourself, I doubt you will be calling a lawyer to see if its ok to use it first.

[MGD]

85. You'll have two years with only a house majority. You'll pass no anti-gun legislation

in the next two years and, if Nanci, or Sarah, or Chuck, or Diane puts it on the table again, millions of loosely affiliated Democrats will, without a second thought, send the Democratic party the way of the Whigs and the Know Nothings, into American political history. And, then, you'll not only have to put up with gun ownership but you'll get to put up with a theocratic fascist right wing nightmare for the rest of your days too.

Edit: I'm replying to the anti-second amendment theme coursing throughout this thread, not the OP.

[WCGreen]

91. Thank you.....

I have no problem at all with the second amendment....

[mrgorth]

95. Here's your answer

http://www.bobcasey.com/multimedia/video/14.aspx

[WCGreen]

96. That is what I tried to talk about....

But the guy just wanted to talk about his guns...

It was frustrating...

[benEzra]

101. The difference between 1996 and 2006...

is that in 1996, the Feinstein ban had been passed into law only two years prior, the Bradyites were pushing Brady II and talking about banning the possession of guns they didn't like, some DLC'er was on TV every other day talking about how evil gun-owning nonhunters were, bans on popular nonhunting guns were a very real possibility, and prices for replacement handgun magazines had increased 500%.

Fast forward to 2006. The Feinstein ban is OVER, the Bradyites and the VPC are out in the cold and recognized for the fringe they are, the party leadership has realized that the ban-more-guns issue is a loser, and "no new gun control" is the message of the national party. Gun owners no longer feel that their backs are against the wall or that their AR-15's and Glocks and SKS's are in the crosshairs. In short, the issue is off the table--and that is a damn good development.

[WCGreen]

102. I really was just pointing out my personal experience....

But what I noticed, in those previously blue areas, the shift has not been made back to blue...

This year, however, I am more confident...

And, if I wasn't disabled, I would probably try to run for that State Senate Seat again...

[caledesi]

103. When did Dems ever take away guns? The rethugs DID in

New Orleans. Push that.

[Lisa]

107. "Why would I want your weapons? Mine are much nicer!"

--guaranteed to make their jaws drop.

[benEzra]

109. LOL! Good comeback!

:)