Prediction: If Democrats win in November gun legislation will be introduced, but...

[SteveM]

the main opposition will NOT come from the NRA, et al, but from folks like us in the "Gungeon." It will be up to us to beat back this kind of legislation not only to kill it off in its own right, but to demonstrate publicly that pro-2A Democrats are taking charge of this issue and changing party policy.

[applegrove]

1. The democrats have completely dropped the issue of guns. It will not

play a role in the Obama administration.

The Gungeon is filled with NRA types.

[bluestateguy]

2. I hope you are right

If Obama wins and he can lay off the gun control he just might win the NRA's endorsement in 2012.

[JMackT]

28. Not likely

The NRA will never support Obama

Check his voting record reguarding guns...

[DonP]

4. And what exactly is "an NRA type"

Are you one of those folks that thinks in terms of "those people" too?

Or are you just ignorant of who actually belongs to the NRA and what they do beyond the NRA-ILA lobbying group?

Maybe you mean the NRA gun safety and marksmanship instructors that have been teaching your police, the military and civilians about gun safety for over 100 years? How many gun safety courses has Sara Brady run so far? Hell, we don't want any of those 4 million voters and their families in November, right?

In 2006 the NRA increased their support of Dems by something like 23% because we finally put some Blue Dog pro gun folks up for elections and, surprise, they got elected. Hopefully they will tell the gun control freaks in Congress that have cost us elections since 1994 to sit down and shut up.

The '90's are over, the Clintons are gone (finally) and so are their DLC big ideas like national gun control and ineffective "feel good" weapon bans.

Personally, I'd like to Obama step up and tell the NRA and everyone else, including Schumer and Feinstein, that he promises to veto any future gun control legislation and take the entire issue out of the play entirely.

[applegrove]

5. An NRA type is someone who has been trained by the NRA to get

on discussion boards and parrot NRA talking points. It usually involves detailed descriptions of guns to make the gun control person feel stupid. A few months ago someone posted a link to a NRA site where they actually discussed going to the Democratic Underground and blogging on gun rights from there. That is what an NRA type is.

Used to be you could identify them by the low number of posts they had (meaning they had just joined the Du in order to advocate for the gun lobby).

These are people who are told what to think. They show up whenever there is a shooting that might result in (oh gosh no) some discussion about guns. They are there to stop the discussion.

[tburnsten]

7. If someone has a detailed discussion

of the guns in question, and it makes a gun-control supporter feel stupid, maybe they ought to do a little more homework, or just let the gun-knowledgable people teach them a thing or two.

"It usually involves detailed descriptions of guns to make the gun control person feel stupid."

When people say they support banning or restricting certain weapons because of cosmetic items like the "shoulder thing that goes up" or state that pistol grips on rifles and shotguns make the weapon "easier to spray fire from the hip", it doesn't take a whole lot of elementary fact checking to discover that not only is that not true, but the person who said it either has no idea what they are talking about or is a liar. Here is a little expirement you can do to see for yourself. To replicate the stock and grip of a rifle or shotgun, use an object like a cellphone, water bottle, anything small enough to grasp in your hand. First, hold it similiar to a straight stocked rifle, held to the shoulder. A little awkward on the wrist right? Now hold it the same way, but down by your wrist. Feels much better anatomically, doesn't it?

Now, make it a pistol grip, by holding it at about 100 degrees, top tilted slightly away from you. Hold it up as if it were attached to a rifle you have shouldered. Feels best, doesn't it? That way your wrist doesn't have to take an unnatural angle when firing, and allows you to control the "weapon" better. Now replicate the pistol grip hold, but down by your waist. Your wrist, if you are doing it properly, will be very uncomfortable, and will be almost painfully contorted to try and point your imaginary shotgun at something in front of you. Not to mention the recoil on your pretend weapon would really hurt your wrist!

So that is why gun-knowledgable people often make gun-control supporters feel stupid, because much of the information that tends to crop up from them doesn't really jive with reality. It would be better if they would just try to see the facts, and not be overwhelmed with the firearms knowledge that is being presented. Knowledge is the goal, not humiliation.

[DonP]

10. Gun control people make themselves look stupid

... all by themselves. No help required.

- They have no idea what the current laws are, but they know for sure we need more laws dammit!

- They know gun bans are a great idea, but never bother to check and see if they have had any impact on crime.

- They know nothing about the guns they want to control, but since all guns are bad, it really doesn't matter.

- They are sure that the majority of Americans think just like they do and don't want to live in fear of gun owners, but somehow 48 states now have concealed carry laws.

- They think anyone can walk into a gun show and walk out with a machine gun, or buy a secret kit for $5 to convert a rifle to a machine gun. The lack of crimes using machine guns is just proof of how carefully the NRA keeps all that secret.

- They know that any gun that looks like a gun the military might use must obviously be a machine gun.

The NRA makes a comvenient Bogeyman for ignorant and stupid people out there though, doesn't it?

"They show up whenever there is a shooting".

You must have the NRA confused with Sara Brady and Paul Helmke, two well recognized Republicans you obviously support, that issue press releases the same day as a major shooting, bemoaning how all the laws they already have still aren't enough to stop a mental case and if you just mail in a few more $ they can try to stop the next tragedy.

But I'd love to see some examples of this secret NRA training program, teaching gun owners how to infiltrate boards. I'm sure you can point to a few NRA inspired examples beyond somthing "a few months ago somewhere on an NRA site"?

I've been to the NRA site and I can't find it anywhere.

Or is the tinfoil slipping and all those black NRA helicopters circling above your house distracting you?

[WWFZD]

18. Now that was impressive.

I was thinking about hanging around tonight and reading the latest goings on here, possibly posting a rumination or two, but that post sums up the gungrabber mentality far better than I could.

Well done DonP:)

The Dems don't need me do they? I'm just a libertarian who voted for a Dem for the first time in years in '06, Strickland for guv, and damn proud of that vote. And I know lots of "single issue voters", as if that is somehow a mark of shame or ignorance when the issue is a matter of supporting the BoR or viewing it as some kind of living, breathing nuisance.

Oh yeah, that and my low post count. Another NRA type shill signing off.

[radioburning]

53. +1. n/t

[benEzra]

12. Snort. Most NRA writings I've seen aren't particularly knowledgeable about nonhunting guns...

An NRA type is someone who has been trained by the NRA to get on discussion boards and parrot NRA talking points. It usually involves detailed descriptions of guns to make the gun control person feel stupid. A few months ago someone posted a link to a NRA site where they actually discussed going to the Democratic Underground and blogging on gun rights from there. That is what an NRA type is.

Used to be you could identify them by the low number of posts they had (meaning they had just joined the Du in order to advocate for the gun lobby).

These are people who are told what to think. They show up whenever there is a shooting that might result in (oh gosh no) some discussion about guns. They are there to stop the discussion.

Snort. Most NRA writings I've seen aren't particularly knowledgeable about nonhunting guns, and tend to go on about "sportsmen" and "hunting purposes" as if this were the 1950's. Even though 4 out of 5 U.S. gun owners are nonhunters, the NRA is still run mostly by hunters and country-club skeet shooters.

FYI, I was an early member of the John Kerry forum, which later became Common Ground Common Sense, and came here from there. I am an on-again, off-again member of the NRA, but any "training" in gun knowledge comes from 20 years of personal experience, and most of the guns I post photos of, I own (look at the photo URL's if you don't believe me; my personal photos are hosted at www.commongroundcommonsense.org).

If you want to rationally discuss an issue, you need to at least make an effort to understand the issue. Those who prattle on about how we need to "ban automatic weapons" or how rifles are "the weapon of choice of criminals" or how the most popular civilian target rifles in America are "designed to be spray-fired from the hip" and "useful only for killing people" are speaking from woeful ignorance and need to be called out on it. Those, indeed, have been "told what to think" by the repubs at the Brady Campaign and the corporatist MSM.

Ignorance and gullibility are NOT progressive values.

Do you really want to know why I spend a lot of time on this issue?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=166560&mesg_id=166708

[SteveM]

15. No one at the NRA trained me. Do you know of some?...

"They are there to stop the discussion"

I've never known anyone who's a regular on "DU Forums: Guns" to stop a discussion! Some can't get enough!

BTW, there are some gun-control "types" who regularly post a list of people killed by guns over the preceding week (of the post), and they get there "talking points" and "parrot" for the anti-"gun lobby."

I've never felt stupid in making my arguments, though on occasion I have made errors. How do 2A advocates make others feel stupid? I do condemn gratuitous insults by anyone, and have pointed that out to those (including 2A advocates) who have used them.

[pipoman]

17. Yep, there is really one pro gun person on DU

he is a Republican with multiple personalities.

This is the type of nonsense which has cost the Democratic party election after election. This 'there is no self respecting true Democrat who might want to preserve the 2nd Amendment for what it is and has always been'. I believe it would be more believable that most gun control advocates are given talking points by Charley Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy and the Brady bunch as they all seem to parrot the same lies repeatedly.

[applegrove]

19. I see the NRA has new talking points.

[pipoman]

21. So you admit that Brady.org is your puppet master?

[applegrove]

22. I am not in contact with any anti-gun organization. I wrote some postcards

for a Canadian organization 20 years ago. Nothing since. So how exactly did I admit to having puppet masters? It is the NRA who runs a tight ship. You project.

[pipoman]

25. Yea, well

I am not an NRA member, I have not been on their site in several years, I disagree with most of their political affiliations, and I find it insulting and repulsive when my party members accuse me and other Democrats of being Thugs in disguise. I find it disgusting that so many in my party desire to strip away an enumerated right of the people under the guise of that right being a right wing right as if there is such a thing. It is a one liner used because there is nothing democratic or Democratic about gun control, it is simply a war horse for self proclaimed intellectuals and urban Democrats. Just keep alienating rural and blue collar Dems with your snide, condescending, meaningless, unfounded, and untrue remarks and help the Thugs win again.

[Boomer 50]

24. I build guns for a living.

I vote Democrat and I hate the NRA. But, I do know the technical side of firearms better than 99% of the American population. To quote a friend, a firearm is a machine that is bigger than a pocket watch and smaller than a car.

I also believe that gun control is destroying our nation. Our current technology is out dated by almost 50 years. The Russians, Chinese, and Koreans have taken firearms technology leaps and bounds beyond what we have. They have a DISTINCT technological advantage over us should we end up in a war. Bush and company have pushed us closer and closer to such a war and if that war is carried to our shores, we are in deep shit.

Gun control is very dangerous and it has put us in a position of weakness before our enemies. Is this a stance that we really want to continue?

[applegrove]

30. So Americans need guns in case of war with China? Okay...

[Testament]

45. Technology has been strangled by gun control...

Before the 1934 act, there were actually quite a lot of technological advances with firearms. The BAR, the M2, 1917, 1918, 1919, the Maxim, the suppressor, etc. The restrictions on certain guns after prohibition stunted that dramatically because of the 200 dollar tax put on those guns. After 200 dollars became less of a problem in the 50s and early 60s there was another load of advances, one of which is the M16. In the period in between and after, our guns have been made by companies, they've given us the M14, the M60, and not too much else when it comes to small arms. Those two guns aren't anything to write home about. The M60 is a jamming POS, and the M14 is expensive, complex, and difficult to shoot. Our troops are using a 50 year old tweaked design (the M16) for their assault rifle and a 100 year old design for their heavy machine gun. Those designs were made by private citizens, not the government, and the stuff that has come from the government or companies has not been particularly good.

[jeepnstein]

57. Isn't it true...

That the firearms that militiamen of the Revolutionary war were far superior to what was issued to British troops? It was privately held arms that were far more technologically advanced for their time. That gave a bunch of irregulars an edge when facing a far superior force.

I have no problem at all with NFA 34 as long as it isn't used as a barrier to citizen ownership of small arms. It would be interesting to see what American industries could produce if there was a bit of market demand.

J.

[EstimatedProphet]

60. It really is an elitist argument

By that I mean this: the fundamental break between gun control advocates and gun ownership advocates is primarily urban-rural, with gun control much more popular in urban areas than rural ones. It is my opinion that the gun control issue really stems from a pro-urban viewpoint more than anything else. Gun control is often stated as a universal solution to high crime - mostly an urban issue - and it is done so with little regard to the fact that rural areas have situations which have little in common with urban ones. The impact on rural voters is too often dismissed, and we suffer for it.

[beevul]

20. You mean we could have been trained?

You mean that after all these years of writing letters and emails to congressman and representatives and newspapers, and all the debates with the brady types about assault weapons and handguns and the second amendment, we pro-gun people could have done it with professional training?

I feel SOOO left out now. :sarcasm:


Nobody tells any of us how to think or what to believe. We have minds of our own, and we use them.

On the other side of the debate however, are the people that swear up and down that a scoped 50 caliber rifle is going to shoot down passenger jets - which no thinking reasoning person could possibly believe.

I really wonder...who is it thats parroting the talking points, eh applegrove?

I think your post amounts to nothing more than projection.

[applegrove]

23. I just told someone on your side that they were projecting. We are mirror images of each other.

How funny. What fun we are having. If only thousands weren't killed by murder, accident & suicide each year we could all laugh a little harder.

[beevul]

26. What do you expect?

You said "I see the NRA has new talking points" which is pretty much a brady et al talking point. Its no surprise that someone responded to you with that, or why.

If you bothered to ask how any of us felt about the thousands killed by gun violence every year, you might be surprised in that not a one of us thinks it is good or right.

Its not a laughing matter. None of it is. Not the deaths. Not the injuries. But neither is it a laughing matter when people on your side of the issue want to ban rifles that are the least used in homicides - less annually than hands and feet are, and high caliber rifles that are essentially never used in crime at all. And the "nra boogieman" gets thrown about in all that.

As far as suicide goes, I feel that a person can not have the right to life, without having the right to end it if they see fit as well. A persons life belongs to nobody but themself. No, I don't see suicide as a good thing, but my view on suicide does not supercede a persons right to end thier own, if they wish, nor should anyone elses.

Honestly, I really have little fun debating this topic. Sure, I have a laugh or two occasionally in dealing with our resident former legal person from the great white north, and I had fun in the past debating (wading through paragraphs of "festooned" "popgun" "paranoid" and "pantload") with benchley/thinktank and acerbic and a couple others, but essentially this is a serious topic for me and about everyone else on the same side of the issue as I am.

You might get a lot farther if you actually try talking to us. Otherwise, you get what you give - the association game. "You keep saying nra talking points." "Oh yeah? well you keep spewing brady/hci/gunguns drivel".

[SteveM]

31. "If thousands weren't killed": what do you propose? (nt)

[applegrove]

32. That you tone down the gun culture and regulate & prosecute the industry

like there is no tomorrow.

[tburnsten]

33. Prosecute the industry for what?

What do you mean "prosecute the industry like there is no tomorrow"? For making a product?

Also, what does "tone down the gun culture" mean? If you mean start to get a handle on the inexplicable love affair we have with rampant criminal violence, then I am in agreement. If you are talking about "toning down" the people who like to competitively shoot and plink then I'm afraid I am not sure what you mean.

[applegrove]

36. Prosecute people who sell to people who sell illegally. Put people with illegal guns in jail for a

longer time. Tone down the gun love culture means just that. Stop making it so tied to patriotism.

[tburnsten]

38. People who get caught illegally with guns

are often basically let go, by way of a little legal mechanism known as concurrent sentencing, where the criminal, if they don't have the weapon charges dropped before sentencing, get to serve their weapon sentences alongside whatever their other convictions are, instead of one after another, like they should. The guy who killed the police sergeant trying to apprehend him after the bank robbery in philadelphia this year was released fourty four years before he was eligible for it. That isn't a criminal justice system that is working.

And as far as the shooting industry goes, I think you would have to search quite hard to find anyone who is a licensed firearms dealer and would knowingly sell a gun to anyone who was either a felon or a domestic abuser, or someone who is a known substance addict/dependent (yes that too is a prohibited class), or anyone who is not mentally competent to own a gun.

The firearms manufacturers have absolutely no control over that, but the BATFE does a good job at prosecuting any dealers they find not following procedures. FFLs have been prosecuted and lost their licenses for far less than selling a gun to someone prohibited. Plus, the National Instant Criminal Check System does work quite well, and if they have any doubts about an individual they will delay the purchase for a few days while they research it further, and if they find a reason to deny the transfer, they will. FFLs have lost their licenses for typos on forms before, really, really minor typos.

[applegrove]

42. Yet the NRA fought those "waiting times" tooth and nail. Why was that?

[tburnsten]

43. What "waiting times'?

Those delays from the NICS are not just delays for the hell of it, they are temporary delays while the NICS staff figures out why the person they are running a background check on is being flagged. They cannot delay the sale more than three to five days, and if they don't call back to permanently deny the sale then the license holder can proceed with the transfer. It isn't just an arbitrary waiting period, it is an administrative action so that the NICS can figure out what happened.


The NRA fought waiting periods that are arbitrary and serve no purpose, like a mandatory waiting period for everyone who is purchasing.

[tburnsten]

56. I'm still waiting for a response N?T

[SteveM]

34. I see you have no specifics. Why is this? (nt)

[applegrove]

37. Cause I am not a specifics kinda person. Just who I am. How I communicate.

[ManiacJoe]

40. That is good to note.

Discussions about firearms and their laws are usually technical discussions that require specifics. When they are not presented, it usually implies a lack of knowledge by the author. It is not always easy to determine whether or not that implication is accurate.

[applegrove]

41. One can notice a huge amount of gun violence in the USA and talk about

one's belief that there should be more control. Detailed discussions are not necessary to have a discussion on the topic. It is a matter of belief not details. All guns kill pretty much the same way. It doesn't matter what calibre the weapon is.

[ManiacJoe]

44. Very true, but

When you say "there should be more control", the follow-up is "such as?", and now you have entered a technical discussion.

Most of us gunnies believe that we have all the restrictions we need in the right places while some of the current restrictions should be removed. Most of the time the current laws are fine, it is the lack of enforcement that hurts everyone.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. It is also a matter of knowledge.

In your earlier post you seem to imply that gun manufacturer are selling firearms illegaly, yet there is no evidence of that. You then change the topic to background checks that you obviously have little knowledge of. I guess we shouldn't worry about details like warrants and probable cause when discussing the 4th Amendment. Details and knowledge are both important if you want to be taken seriously.

David

[old mark]

52. Applegrove PLEASE read a post here titled

"The Alternate Reality of Gun Control...". It deals with the total disregard for truth on the part of the gun control faction and I urge you to read it completely.

You need to at least become aquainted with the truth, because you are not now.

mark

[beevul]

39. Therein lies the rub.

"tone down the gun culture"

You want to tone down a culture that you show no evidence of understanding. And its just a polite way of saying "culture war". Of saying "undercut the gun culture so that they have no power to oppose what I want".

Maybe thats not what you mean, but thats certainly the message it puts across. And thats exactly why people on the fence and independents - who value their rights where firearms are concerned, and value their own bought and paid for legally owned personal private property - vote against Democrats. Because that message is exactly what was sent for over ten years. How has the last ten years been for Democrats?

"prosecute the industry like there is no tomorrow".


If you are talking about holding the gun industry responsible for the actions of others, that idea is as much of a non-starter as holding Chevrolet and Budweiser responsible when someone drives drunk and kills someone.

Outside that, what your talking about is a matter of enforcement of current law that I doubt anyone would have any problem with, hereabouts.

[old mark]

51. Reality is many more are killed by swimming accidents

than by guns every year.

This "concern" is a lie.

mark

[aldo]

35. How open minded of you

Why don't you consider what we low post count posters have to say on the posts' own merits?

There are also a number of progressive pro 2A groups out there. http://www.progunprogressive.com/ for example. Check them out.

I hope the UU shooting didn't upset your little apple cart. Anne Coulter and Little Green Football psychos mean it when they say, "we have the guns, why don't we use them." This nutcase took them up on it. If you won't defend yourself, perhaps you'll defend your family.

[old mark]

49. You obviously really believe this.

I believe the opposite - the anti gun lobby has people who will say anything, repeat the same old lies endlessly in order to attempt to increase support for their position, and increase revenue coming to them and their "cause".

I used to belong to the NRA about 30 years ago, but stopped my yearly membership when they became too right-oriented and anti-Democrat.

I might consider joining again if they support Democratic candidates and lose some of the real right wingers.

mark

[one-eyed fat man]

55. NRA and Democrats

The NRA has NO PROBLEM endorsing pro-gun Democrats; they have had, historically, a problem FINDING them! That finally started to change in 2006 with Blue Dogs openly declaring their defiance to the national party on the issue.

All my A rated pro-gun Democratic candidates had NRA endorsments last election cycle. None of the antis running got their nod and party didn't matter.

[bossy22]

11. agreed

i think it will be a non-issue with a president obama- i think he is going to focus on the more important and pressing issues such as healthcare, the war, and the economy

[jody]

14. The Gungeon is filled with loyal Democrats who fight for all civil rights of which RKBA is just one.

In opposition we have those who fight to take away the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self defense as stated in the Democratic Party platform and Constitution.

It's sad that those who claim to be Democrats don't support the Dem Party platform and it's disingenuous for them to question the loyalty of other Democrats who fight for RKBA.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. Good point.

[one-eyed fat man]

59. read it again...

The 2008 platform says ".....there is a right" BUT then goes on to support the Chicago gun ban, a new assault weapons ban, and closing the mythical 'gun-show loophole.'

Isn't that like saying, "We support equal rights except for (insert offensive racial slurs of your choice)?

Wait, there was a time when it did just about that too!

When it comes to the Bill of Rights, how does the DNC count to ten, "1, 3, 4, 5, 6, ......."

You would think that they would be smart enough to at least quit backing this loser position long enough to win an election! Pro gun Democrats didn't abandon the Party, the Party abandoned them. Don't believe me, just look through all the posts on DU that tell RKBA supporters to GTFO and join the Republicans, in just about as many words.

[Renew Deal]

3. Introducing new gun laws would be pretty dumb.

Maybe after the middle of Obama's second term.

[virginia mountainman]

6. Yea,

That way we will KNOW, just who is in, the anti-civil rights 5th column, when they raise their hands in support of just such bullshit.

And we can purge the followers of that vile Republican Sara Brady from our midsts.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. What kind of legislation, exactly?

Kind of an open-ended statement. We talking bans, registration, allowing product liability for actual bad products? (Like a Mossberg bolt action shotgun that had to be recalled due to slam-fires)

What sort of legislation are you actually warning us about here?

[tburnsten]

9. Gotta walk lightly with liability legislation

Just because some jackoff is always going to be waiting in the wings to try and sue the hell out of a company for shooting himself or because he wasn't responsible enough to maintain control of his weapon, like that idiot cop in California suing Glock (he carried it every day, how could he not know that it discharges when the trigger is pulled?).


I think he means "assault weapons" "bans" and other nonsense legislation.

[benEzra]

13. Liability for bad products is already allowed.

The liability protection passed a few years ago blocked liability for the actions of gun-using criminals, not defective products.

To me, the biggest concern is that the corporatists may try to resurrect the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, and attempt to sucker the party into trying to outlaw the most popular guns in America, again. I also worry that a gun-control crusader could be appointed head of the BATFE, which would be almost as big a political mistake.

[SteveM]

16. See H.R. 1022, about as open-ended a ban as you would want:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

[one-eyed fat man]

54. bad odds............

There are 236 Democratic members of Congress, and roughly half of them are solidly on line with the AWB,as co-sponsors.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA)
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Rep. William Clay (D-MO)
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA)
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA)
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA)
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Rep. James Langevin (D-RI)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA)
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Rep. James McGovern (D-MA)
Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL)
Rep. Bradley Miller (D-NC)
Rep. James Moran (D-VA)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Del. Eleanor Norton (D-DC)
Rep. John Olver (D-MA)
Rep. William Pascrell (D-NJ)
Rep. Edward Pastor (D-AZ)
Rep. David Price (D-NC)
Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA)
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA)
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)
Rep. John Tierney (D-MA)
Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA)
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-MD)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA)
Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC)
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD)

Is ANYONE still confused as to why all those red state folks equate "gun-grabber' with "Democrat?" For the past 40 years the national leadership has done every thing it can to make that association in peoples' minds as natural a combination as "ham and eggs." No doubt it cost us Congress in 1994, and kept Gore from winning his HOME state of Tennesee or West Virgina which would have made Florida a moot point. It sank Kerry faster than a Swift boat, yet we insist on this loser issue on our platform.

[applegrove]

27. Story on an NRA mole here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3702535

[virginia mountainman]

29. That is HILARIOUS!!

Thanks for making my day!

Glad to see that Rethug Paul Hemike is upset!

[SteveM]

46. Republicans spying on Republicans. Not bad. (nt)

[old mark]

50. I read this article before. Does Helmke have great secrets that no one else can yet know?

What information could possibly be of so much concern?
Financial records?
Political afiliations?
Records of contributions?

Helmke is a lying SOB, and is really only in it for the money and power.

mark

[derby378]

47. Wait for the platform to be written at the convention in Denver...

...and then we'll have a better idea what the agenda for gun legislation may look like over the next four years.

Or you can write the platform committee yourself and let them know how you feel:

[e-mail]