Winning the good ol' boy vote

[Spaceman Spiff]

Saturday night I went to my fiancee's brother's house to watch the UFC. Even got to fire his brand new crossbow. (I'm not a hunter but goddam I want one now!) Anyway, as we progressed to get shitfaced throughout the evening we got to talking politics. Turns out he pretty much aggrees with Democrats on everything: We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, he thinks the whole Intelligent Design thing is a sack of shit, he's all for a woman's right to choose, and he even has a son with cystic fibrosis so he's all for stem cell research.

But guess where we lost him. It was on gun control issues alone. Now me personally I'm all for gun ownership. Even got my own little arsenal. But I know many of you may favor some gun control. Hell, I could even get behind making first time buyers take a safety course.

The big issue here, though, is the Democratic party must make sure that guys like my fiancee's brother can be assured that nobody is going to take away their rights to own firearms. Hell, he even liked Clinton except for the assault weapons ban.

[PATRICK]

1. Did he vote for Clinton?

A little non-GOP education might help since he doesn't fall for the other big ones. First, the NRA is drenched in GOP political operatives and zealots like Norquist. Second, the Dems wouldn't care if typical gun owners were shooting themselves in the foot with any caliber if the vote depended on their liberty to do so, but the reality of gun horrors is an urban chaos reality which cannot be extricated fromn the entire system of factories, gun shows, mail orders, regulation. The Democrats have tried to make that separation and it is the GOP who have protected the arming of criminals by linkage.

Linkage is a typical GOP tactic in economics and all issues so that nothing good can be accomplished without making everyone suffer or the privileged get their "share" or payoff. In tpolicy philosophy it is ALL one piece. If he had finally seen the light on one issue get the structure and process and apply it to the remaining ones.

The problem with the Democrats is the GOP, not the voter. With being honest if timid legislators, not the principles of liberty and rights. On this issue the voter has as much influence not to get buried by democratic power as on any other, but the GOP influence is plain nuts no matter what personal benefit an individual gets on a narrow range of issues.

Nor can it be trusted at all. It is the GOP that now has tagged gun owners, those with military experience, the phone calls and profiles, the NRA, given green light and guns to makes the streets unsafe for all manner of violent backlashes and absolkutely none of this is for the freedom and rights and secuirty of the individual. Their system is phony. It will ensure someday you will actually need a gun- and won't have it or won't do any good. And while crime and violence thrives and the prisons lock away your fellow voters from national life you can forget about any other freedom or issue or voting privilege you cherish. Or does one need absolute gun freedom so badly that democracy must be destroyed and everything worth protecting sacrificed? Isn't it then all about the violent extreme? Is it because of legislation that the younger generation is deserting traditional hunting or becuase of the needs of ordinary individuals that deadlier weaponry is being scattered throughout all the social troublespots in the nation?

If we are still losing voters based on single issue parsing and focus groups someone, the vopter or the pol, needs to get their act together and face sober reality- which has nothing at all to do with any particular issue or reform allegiance. THAT is the Democratic Party large problem, not the individual trees in the forest that have them stymied.

[Allyoop]

2. Amendment 2 Dems dot net

Ask him to take a look at www.a2dems.net He may find a reason not to be a one issue voter.

[derby378]

9. Thank you...

I've had more than a few pro-gun Democrats tell me "I thought I was alone..." before they ran into a site like Pro-Gun Progressive, Amendment II Democrats, Liberals With Guns, etc.

[benEzra]

5. Hunting is irrelevant, IMHO...

Is it because of legislation that the younger generation is deserting traditional hunting or becuase of the needs of ordinary individuals that deadlier weaponry is being scattered throughout all the social troublespots in the nation?

Hunting is irrelevant, IMHO; only 1 in 5 American gun owners is a hunter. I'm not; my wife isn't; most of the other gun owners I know aren't either. As a nonhunter, whether or not I'm "allowed" to own a hunting rifle or skeet shotgun is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what "deadlier weaponry" you're speaking of, but by far the #1 weapon used in homicides in this country is the venerable .38/.357 caliber revolver. Rifles don't even rate, if that's what you're thinking of.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html

[Cosmocat]

14. Bingo ...

That pretty much nails it ...

[benEzra]

3. He isn't the only one...

Alienated Rural Democrat

This gun owner's perspective on the issue:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[blm]

4. Didn't he notice that after 8yrs of Clinton he STILL had his guns and

no one tried to knock his door down the whole 8yrs?

[gulliver]

7. But if he talked about guns on the phone, then the government....

... may now have it in a database thanks to Bush. Free gun registration by wiretap! Brought to you by the GOP!

[blm]

8. HAHAH - and so it is.

.

[Redneck Socialist]

6. Well, there you go

The perception that Dems are anti-gun has done more harm to our party than any other issue. At least IMNSHO.

[LWolf]

10. Can I ask this,

not being a gun-enthusiast or owner myself:

What is the real, core issue for gun owners?

What is the point of the firearm? To hunt, to protect, to compete, what?

What is the point of owning an assault weapon?

Is the core issue that gun owners want to own any kind of weapon, as many of them as they want, with little or no regulation, or is the point that they want to be able to own guns for specific purposes?

Is it that they want a whole bunch instead of a few, or something that can only be classified as a human-killer, or that they just don't want to be regulated?

It would help me to process this issue if I truly understood the point; otherwise, those of us who are not gun enthusiasts just see what seems to be fanatacism.

It would also help if gun-enthusiasts presented themselves as safe and responsible. In my admittedly limited experience, that "get together to shoot" often goes with the "getting shit-faced," and I can tell you that I don't think weapons and alcohol mix well. I can ride my horse out onto public land a couple of miles from my house and find targets riddled with bullet holes, and shell casings with large numbers of empty beer bottles laying around. It doesn't exactly make me feel safe on public land, and the mess left behind is an eyesore.

We can best come together if we could understand each other's pov and meet each other half way, imo. Are gun-enthusiasts willing to meet anyone half way? I'm here if you are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. I suggest for many, the issue is 1st economic, 2nd emotional

"A small arsenal" is a non-trivial investment.

You've seen "a christmas story" right? I suspect that most gun buyers have similar fantasies as Ralphie.

My ambivalence toward guns is not diminished by recognizing that the central point of the OP is correct, gun ownership is a single issue deal that alienates people who absolutely most need to vote for us.

[LWolf]

17. I haven't seen "a christmas story."

I acknowledge the issue; that's why I'm asking the questions. If I'm going to meet someone halfway, I have to have some sort of understanding of where they are coming from.

Personally, I just don't relate. I don't "get" the economic issue, except to wonder why people would want to spend their money that way, and I don't "get" the emotional issue, although I recognize that it's real. If I could "get" those things, I could probably do a better job discussing the issue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. The economic issue is simple.

A good shotgun is worth several hundred dollars.

Imagine that one of your primary assets were percieved to be at risk of being siezed. Surely you can understand that. If not, I'd suggest you're not trying very hard to seek the middle ground.

"you'll take my loud stereo gear and my hotrod car when you pry it out of my cold, dead fingers."

[LWolf]

39. So this is about

holding what you have, not what you might not be able to get easily in the future?

Is there a risk that someone is going to lose their shotgun? That is a sincere question. I've had family members with shotguns, rifles, and handguns, and none of them were ever concerned that they wouldn't be allowed to keep them. I haven't seen any of that family in many years, since we're divorced, but one just passed away and left a rifle to my sons. They don't shoot, but would have taken it as an heirloom if there hadn't been a "you show up to pick it up by Friday, or we're not giving it to you" from that side of the family. (We live 900 miles away.)

[ComerPerro]

13. they think that, by being able to keep a few guns,

they will be able to defend themselves from the government when it comes after them.

As though they and their retard hunting buddies could actually take on several hundred trained US soldiers.

[guruoo]

20. Iraqis "take on" trained soldiers every day ...

And the Palestinians have been doing it for years.
What makes you think the results would be any different here?

[ComerPerro]

23. um, because here, it would be a small group of militiamen

all in one central location, surrounded on US soil by literally thousands of soldiers.

[guruoo]

24. Do you really believe that?

Do you believe that our soldiers would
just go along with it? This isn't necessarily
a left vs right wing thing, you know, although
IMHO, the right would likely be the direction
from which such hostitities would be initiated.

[MissMarple]

22. "Red Dawn".... in some circles, it's a patriotic movie classic.

:shrug: The second amendment's position on gun ownership seems fairly clear, yet remains difficult to interpret. One question is whether it refers specifically to each individual citizen or to Americans in general. Personally, I don't believe it means that all Americans, regardless of competency, may keep any weapon or weapons of their choosing.

And, I would so like to have a cross bow.

[Spaceman Spiff]

15. Honestly

I just like shooting at targets. And if somebody breaks into my house then too bad for them.

[LWolf]

19. Is that the same sort of

thing defined by testosterone levels that I've always seen in my sons and grandson? The need to go to battle, to hit, to throw, to destroy?

I'm not criticizing; it's just something I've noticed. During "free play," my grandson enjoys physical things. He's not completely happy until he turns what he's doing into some sort of battle, though. If he's climbing trees, he's thinking about meeting monsters at eye-level. If he sees a stick, it's a sword and he wants to strike everything in site, including my landscaping. If he sees a rock, it's for throwing, to knock things down. If he has something manmade, it's about taking it apart and leaving it in pieces.

The same thing my students are telling me when they start the year by stating that they "like to blow things up." Hoping, of course, for some sort of reaction. ;)

Targets are benign when they aren't alive or when they don't belong to someone else. Lives are something else, and that might be where the divide is. None of my "stuff" is worth a life, and I don't want to be responsible for judging others in that way. I'd rather let the justice system deal with them, as long as the health and safety of me or mine is not threatened.

Interestingly enough, I lived for 5 years in a neighborhood with drug dealers, gang members, and working poor people. None of them ever threatened me in any way, and I never worried that they'd try to break in the house. Probably because their "stuff" was nicer than mine, lol.

[benEzra]

34. For me, shooting is a Zen thing (n/t)

[sendero]

18. The point is really..

.. at it's core, pretty simple. It's none of the government's business. Yes, I said it. It's none of their business nor should it be subject to the "tyranny of the majority" like say the drug laws.

Fact is, I have a place in the country are there guns are essential. But guess what - I have a couple in my city home also. I can't really say they are for "defense", because I have teen boys and hence I keep them under lock and key. But I could get to one in a half a minute, should the need arise.

Fact is, some people don't like other folks telling them what they can and cannot do. Gun control as envisioned by most "liberals" is too stupid to even consider. The kinds of things they want to do will take guns out of the hands of the law abiding, and leave them available for everyone else, hardly a strategy for reducing gun violence.

I've been banging on this issue around here for years, we are PISSING AWAY MILLIONS OF VOTES over stupid, useless, ineffective laws like the Assault Weapons Ban - and what do we or the country get for it? Not a thing. We get to have one more wedge issue used against us.

[LWolf]

40. This is something that makes sense to me.

I can completely relate to wanting people to stay out of my business.

That's a constant tight-rope walk for any issue; when more oversight is needed, and when enough is enough, or too much.

It's really all about this: keeping regulation out of our private lives is fine, as long as what we do does not cause harm. When whatever it is we are doing stretches beyond our nose to negatively impact others, it's not ok. If every human could be depended on to live by that rule, guns or anything else wouldn't need regulation. As it is, it's a fine line between enough to provide reasonable safety, and going too far. Gun owners seem to feel like things go to far, while people who don't own guns want to feel safe from the gun owners.

I think the real losers in this battle are the responsible gun owners. They aren't hurting anyone, and have a legitimate complaint. It doesn't take too many irresponsible shooters to cause problems for everyone.

Do responsible gun owners debate about how to handle those trigger-happy folks causing the problems? Not the criminals, but the "accidental" shooters, those that drink and shoot, etc.. What do they think?

[benEzra]

48. More thoughts...

I think the real losers in this battle are the responsible gun owners. They aren't hurting anyone, and have a legitimate complaint. It doesn't take too many irresponsible shooters to cause problems for everyone.

Do responsible gun owners debate about how to handle those trigger-happy folks causing the problems? Not the criminals, but the "accidental" shooters, those that drink and shoot, etc.. What do they think?

Prosecute people for reckless endangerment when they point an "unloaded" gun at someone else and pull the trigger. "The gun just went off!" No, it didn't. An idiot pointed a gun at a human being, not in self-defense, and pulled the trigger. The gun functioned as designed; pointing the gun and pulling the trigger was criminal negligence.

Thank goodness, gun accidents are EXTREMELY rare, and are still declining. If you eliminated gun accidents by criminals from the accident stats, they'd be lower still. But there is certainly room to prosecute the negligent, if you remove "it was the gun's fault!" from the equation.

Regarding people who get drunk and shoot dangerously/recklessly, or litter on public land...those ARE crimes, and can be prosecuted. The fact that it occurs in a remote area is the difficult part; it's not legal.

[Redneck Socialist]

25. Well, horses are pretty dangerous you know...

It'd be best if anyone wanting to buy a horse had to ask the FBI's permission first. Oh, and black horses, well they are really scary looking, so we should ban them outright. Tail length too, that should be regulated. Maybe people should wait before buying a horse, or only be able to buy a few horses a year. Don't get me started on ponies, they are too concealable and only good for giving kids rides. Nobody needs one of those. Don't even think of selling one of your horses to a friend, you know, that horse show loophole, best get that under control right quick. If you do own a horse you need to keep it locked in a secure cage. What if it gets out and falls into the wrong hands?

Now I know you horse nuts'll just say you need your horse to get around when a tyrannical government takes over the means of transportation and you'll probably prattle on about the "right to keep and be bourne by horses," but that only really applies to the cavalry and really it's pretty outdated don't you think?



People own guns for the same reasons they own horses I imagine. Much recent gun regulation has been every bit as absurd as the facetious examples I posted above. I can't speak for other gun owners, but I love to hunt and I like to shoot. When someone attacks my means of enjoying those things, that's an attack on me and my way of life. It's personal, that's why it gets so heated.

[benEzra]

33. Thoughts...

Can I ask this,

not being a gun-enthusiast or owner myself:

What is the real, core issue for gun owners?

What is the point of the firearm? To hunt, to protect, to compete, what?

Most surveys I've seen rank defensive purposes as reason #1 for gun ownership, followed closely by recreational target shooting as #2. Hunting is a distant third, with approximately 1 in 5 gun owners being a hunter.

What is the point of owning an assault weapon?

An "assault weapon" is a civilian rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out, a civilian shotgun that holds more than 5 shells, or a civilian rifle or handgun that holds more than 6 or 10 rounds of ammunition, depending on the definition du jour.

I'm a Gen-X'er; I HATE 19th-century-fogey straight stocks on rifles, unless the rifle is of historical interest. I prefer the ergonomics of a protruding handgrip on a rifle; it not only is more comfortable for target shooting, but it's a safer and more practical stock style for a defensive carbine, and it looks 500% better to boot.



Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle with 19th-century-fogey straight stock


Same rifle with more modern looking stock, aka an "assault weapon"


Some other "assault weapons":


Benelli turkey-hunting shotgun, 12-gauge; "assault weapon" because of the handgrip


Preban Marlin Model 60 .22LR caliber squirrel hunting rifle
("assault weapon" in New Jersey because of its 17-round magazine)


Hammerli small-caliber target competition pistol ("assault weapon" because the magazine well isn't in the handgrip)


Romanian SAR-1, non-automatic civilian rifle ("assault weapon" because of the handgrip)


Glock 19 9mm pistol ("assault weapon" because of its 15-round magazine)

Is the core issue that gun owners want to own any kind of weapon, as many of them as they want, with little or no regulation, or is the point that they want to be able to own guns for specific purposes?

No, it isn't about the right to own "any kind of weapon." Nearly all gun owners, AND the NRA, support the fairly comprehensive restrictions embodied in the National Firearms Act of 1934, which places very tight controls on all automatic weapons (including military AK-47's and Uzi's), all firearms over .50 caliber (some hunting guns excepted), all sound-suppressed firearms, all gun-type grenade launchers, all grenades, smoothbore pistols, shoulder-stocked pistols, sawed-off shotguns, short-barreled rifles, rifles and shotguns less than 26" long, disguised firearms (cane guns, wallet guns, cell phone guns), explosives, etc. etc. etc. The NRA helped write the 1986 law that banned handgun ammunition designed to penetrate Kevlar, the law that bans guns not detectable by X-ray/metal detectors, etc. etc.

What we want is to preserve the right of law-abiding adults with clean records who have not been ajudicated mentally incompetent, to own civilian, non-automatic firearms under .51 caliber that meet all the provisions of the NFA. In short, I want the right as a law-abiding adult of sound mind to choose to own defensive pistols and carbines, and target rifles, that have modern styling or post-Civil-War magazine capacities, without being hassled about it by busybodies who don't like guns or people who own them.

Rifles based on the AR-15 platform are among the most popular centerfire target rifles in the United States, and they are almost never used criminally (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides). They are less lethal at close range than a shotgun, and less lethal at long range than a hunting rifle. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ban them, except that they LOOK very modern, and the gun prohibitionists absolutely hate that.

Is it that they want a whole bunch instead of a few, or something that can only be classified as a human-killer, or that they just don't want to be regulated?

It would help me to process this issue if I truly understood the point; otherwise, those of us who are not gun enthusiasts just see what seems to be fanatacism.

What kind of gun qualifies as a "human killer"?

The most commonly used gun in homicides is the .38/.357 caliber revolver. Rifles of any description are almost never used in homicides. So anyone who is applying the "human killer" label to civilian rifles is peddling agitprop.

As far as the "whole bunch instead of a few" question - what would you define as a "whole bunch"? Ten firearms? Fifty? Guns do occupy different niches, like golf clubs, and you can find some thoughts on that topic here.

It would also help if gun-enthusiasts presented themselves as safe and responsible. In my admittedly limited experience, that "get together to shoot" often goes with the "getting shit-faced," and I can tell you that I don't think weapons and alcohol mix well. I can ride my horse out onto public land a couple of miles from my house and find targets riddled with bullet holes, and shell casings with large numbers of empty beer bottles laying around. It doesn't exactly make me feel safe on public land, and the mess left behind is an eyesore.

As a gun owner, people who are irresponsible like that absolutely burn me up, and if I ever found anybody doing that, I'd probably report them. Whenever I go to an isolated range like that, it'd be my goal to leave the place cleaner than I left it, for precisely the reason you describe. That situation is one reason I'd personally like to see more of of our Pittman-Roberts excise taxes (80% of which are probably paid by nonhunters) to go toward the creation and maintenance of good shooting ranges instead of being poured solely into the management of hunting lands.

FWIW, both my wife and I are responsible, college-educated, proficient in gun use, very careful, and store our guns in a safe when they're not in use.

We can best come together if we could understand each other's pov and meet each other half way, imo. Are gun-enthusiasts willing to meet anyone half way? I'm here if you are.

I agree.

I do think gun enthusiasts have indeed done a lot of compromising over the years (the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the closure of the NFA Title 2 auto registry in 1986, the armor-piecing bullet ban, the NCIS background check, etc.). The feeling among most gun owners is that we've done practically all of the compromising over the last 72 years, and have gotten little or nothing in return.

As far as where we're coming from, I wrote this mega-post shortly after the 2004 election, and it may help you understand where we're coming from:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[LWolf]

41. Very informative,

and very well presented. Thank you.

The rest of the iceberg is the human factor; how to protect the world from destructive acts of hate, irresponsibility or arrogance without curtailing the freedom of the greater population. I don't have the answers, but I think it applies here. Perhaps if people come to the table willing to explain and communicate, it could be a start.

[ComerPerro]

12. then he is a moron. Hate to tell you, but he is

because he believed Bush and the NRA's lies about "Democrats coming to take your guns away"

[-..__...]

27. It really didn't help matters...

when the Democratic nominee/candidate (while as a Senator), had voted in favor and/or cosponsored each and every gun control bill submitted before Congress.

It also didn't help that that very same Senator (and his closest rival in the primaries), interrupted his/their campaign tour specifically to vote in favor of renewing the "Assault Weapons Ban".

If it weren't for the overly obsessive and fervent zeal of a handful of Dem legislators in the Senate and House, gun control would be non-issue.

[benEzra]

30. What if your gun looks like this?

Unfortunately for the 2004 campaign, Senator Kerry not only promised to ban this rifle, but cosponsored legislation (S.1431) to do so. I was among those on Mr. Kerry's forum in 2003-2004 trying to persuade the campaign to drop the issue, but his advisors listened to the gun-ban lobby instead, and it hurt the campaign immensely.

Ever since the DLC made banning more guns the party's de facto top legislative priority in the early 1990's, this issue has been destroying national Dems in pro-gun states. From a pragmatic standpoint, fighting to ban more and more lawfully owned civilian guns (ESPECIALLY rifles, which are almost never misused) is a foolish position to be taking.

[Duke Newcombe]

42. Yikes!...I hope that's not the best...

...we can do to let Bubba know we're the "big tent" party?

dUKE

[gratuitous]

16. I think at root it's a matter of communication

And the people who are talking to your friend with any frequency are those who scare him into thinking preposterous things. This is why I really like Dr. Dean's 50-state strategy (not to hijack the thread). Because the party power structure has effectively written off large portions of the country, the only people a lot of voters hear from are folks like the NRA or Rush Limbaugh.

Good for you for talking with your prospective brother-in-law. Open his political awareness a little wider than the single issue of guns, and that having a sufficient number of bang-bangs isn't really going to help his son get treatment.

[KansDem]

21. Let me see if I understand this...

With Democrats on:
1) shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
2) Intelligent Design thing is a sack of shit.
3) a woman's right to choose.
4) stem cell research.

BUT, he believes the Rush Limbaugh line that Dems are going to take his guns away, so he backs the Repubs?

:crazy:

[Redneck Socialist]

26. You'd be astounded at how much company he has

Many gun owners are single issue voters. If the Democratic Party could shed the image as gun grabbers it would take away one of the most effective republican wedge issues.

[benEzra]

28. What if a Dem PROMISES to do so?

Whenever Dianne Feinstein can grab a microphone, she promises to ban half the guns in our family's gun safe, and tries to make herself the voice of the party on the issue.

A number of prominent Dems got sucked into supporting the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch in a big way in 2000 and 2004, and someone in the party's Senate leadership went so far as to yank Senators Kerry and Edwards off the campaign trail on Super Tuesday to go vote for a bill (S.1431) to ban some of the most popular civilian target rifles in the United States.

National Dems are wising up on the issue, but there is a small yet highly vocal contingent (mostly DLC types) that still seeks to make banning more guns a prime focus of the Democratic legislative agenda. That would be a very, very bad idea.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

Alienated Rural Democrat

[sendero]

31. It isn't just you ..

... who doesn't get it, numbers of our legislators don't get it either.

For reasons clearly well beyond your ken, the right to own firearms is a VERY BIG DEAL to large numbers of people.

It is the ONLY THING that will potentially keep this country from descending into a fascist dictatorship.

[skipos]

32. Many, if not most, voters aren't very smart.

We need to start accepting that.

[PaDem]

35. Exactly.........

The republicans, much more so than the Democrats, have not only accepted this reality but have embraced it and have campaigned on the premise that generally speaking, American voters are naive, ill informed and easily led.

[Awsi Dooger]

29. I would ban them all

But one day post election '92 I realized I was out of whack in terms of what Democrats needed to do. A friend of mine who was otherwise reasonable was in sheer panic after Clinton was elected. He said he was going to immediately stock up on every type of gun since Clinton was sure to ban them.

When I laughed I expected a light hearted facial expression and reply, but he splattered me with a flurry of obscenities. He was dead serious and the next day he bragged about and described his new toys. I've never underestimated this issue since then.

[-..__...]

36. He's not the only one.

During the years prior to the AWB expiring, the "for sale" sections on various firearms forums and auction sites had ads for numerous "pre-ban" guns and magazines. It wasn't unusual to see firearms selling for more than twice what the seller originally paid for them. A +10 round magazine that normally
would have sold for $8.00 - $10.00 or less, could easily be sold for $25.00 - $30.00 (and that was for magazines that were produced in the millions).

As for myself... lets just say that I've become a bit of a "mag whore" and have also picked up a few other "acquisitions" that I normally wouldn't have purchased. :evilgrin:

Why? Because I can guaran-fucking-tee you the same 3-4 anti-gun zealots are going to bring up this same
AWB BS again... and again... and again.

[SteppingRazor]

38. I don't know why he's lost, then... guns are practically a dead issue...

Have you heard any politician talk about greater gun control in the 21st Century? Remember those photos of Kerry with his shotgun? Gun control is a dead issue. We've got as much control as we're going to get.


(Now leave me and my handguns alone :P )

[benEzra]

44. Unfortunately, yes...but they're now rather on the fringe...

Have you heard any politician talk about greater gun control in the 21st Century?

Unfortunately, here and there, yes. The Maryland legislature is currently considering a ban on rifles with protruding handgrips, despite the fact that all rifles combined accounted for only 2 homicides out of 520 in Maryland in 2004, but I don't think it's going anywhere. The guy who runs Pro-Gun Progressive attended a Sarah Brady press conference in Maryland recently, and he said there were about five people there, and two of whom were there to oppose the ban.

Google "assault weapons" and you will find a few more gun-404 politicians elsewhere pushing for sweeping new bans. But for the most part, I think people are realizing that the ban-more-guns issue is a loser, and that those continuing to push the issue are stuck in the 1980's.

Gun control is a dead issue. We've got as much control as we're going to get.

Concerning restrictions on what the law-abiding can own, I certainly hope you're right.

I hope to get out to the range with my "AK-47" this weekend...

[nmliberal]

43. Our Democratic party is having a raffle for a 44 mag Henry Big Boy

We started our raffle during the County Fair...opened up a few eyes, as many Dems in this part of the world are hunters and shooting range guys.

[derby378]

45. Any chance I could register by mail or e-mail?

If I can do so without breaking any ferderal and/or state laws, please PM me. This is one Democratic raffle I can really get behind.

[clark08]

46. The bubba vote is

always very crucial. Kerry did not go over well with the Bubba's.

[roseBudd]

47. Dems taking their guns is a right wing myth, first of all it's impossible

it would be like trying to put toothpaste back in a tube. Guns pretty much last forever unlike TVs and the government could never seize them.

[PresidentWar]

49. "Gonna take away our guns" is horseshit, to thinking people

I was raised in a staunchly Democratic household, that was also an arsenal. My dad even worked for the NRA for a few years. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having guns. That being said, I have never understood the hyperreaction of so many people over this issue. Reasonable gun regulation will NOT take all your guns away and there is no stretch of logic in any direction that shows it can or will. I'm sorry but this lack of thinking pisses me off. The next time your gun owning pal lets fly with this stupid bromide, ask him if the FDA made it impossible for him to eat.

Educate the public. You can't say, these days, that you dno't get enough chances to do that!

[derby378]

50. So what IS "reasonable gun regulation," anyway?

I ask because the average Million Mom March member might tell you that "sensible gun laws" include a Federal ban on any semi-automatic firearm with safety features that they don't think civilians have any right to own. Gun control is very much a current issue today - if you don't believe me, just research some of the recent quotes by Rahm Emanuel, Rod Blagojevich, and others.

There are, however, Democratic candidates such as Jack Carter, Carl Sheeler, Bob Casey, and a host of Texas Democrats who are supportive of our Second Amendment rights. We are a "big tent" party, after all.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leesa]

51. Conservatives are about control and it will be conservatives who take away

guns if anyone does. I don't understand why gun owners can't see that. Who do they think the Revolutionaries were fighting against?

[eccles12]

52. Winning the "good ole boys?" No matter, they will soon be outnumbered in

almost every category in society.

[derby378]

53. I wouldn't be so sure...

There's a little bit of "good ol' boy" in a lot of otherwise progressive and politically-savvy DUers. We are who we are, no apology needed or necessary.

"Gun-control industry, you're on notice!"


:evilgrin: