Obama discusses local gun violence and the NRA

[maximusveritas]

Obama spoke today at the Vernon Park Church of God on Chicago's Far South Side about the recent spate of gun violence afflicting the community.

"The violence is unacceptable, and it's got to stop," he said.

Obama called for better enforcement of existing gun laws, tighter background checks on gun buyers and for making an expired assault weapon ban permanent.

"A couple weeks ago, cops found an AK-47 near a West Side school," he said. "That type of weapon belongs on a battlefield, not on the streets of Chicago."

But Obama said the "power of the gun lobby in Washington" has blocked tougher gun laws and enforcement.

"If you want to go hunt, go hunt. Nobody is trying to take your shotgun or rifle away," he said. "But when you've got the gun lobbying saying that we can't use ballistics to trace back where guns came from ... then it is time for us to stand up to the gun lobby and say enough. It is time for a change in Washington."

It's good to see that he's not afraid to take on the NRA. We've been way too willing to lay down on this issue and give the NRA what it wants just to avoid angering a few rural voters. And then the NRA attack us anyway when it comes time to the election, so I don't see the point of it.

Read more about his speech here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obamagunsjul16,1,2507768.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[sandnsea]

1. The NRA attacks us anyway

That's because they're a political arm of the Republican Party whose purpose is to get votes, and support gun manufacturing money. I wish rural Democrats could see how they're being used.

[zanne]

2. Gobama!

I love his stands on guns and religion.

[jody]

3. Obama still doesn't understand, RKBA is about self-defense not hunting. Moreover AK-47s are already

tightly controlled under federal law, see CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS

[Ethelk2044]

yet, they still get on the streets.

[jody]

5. And so do illegal drugs. We need aggressive enforcement of existing laws and max sentences. n/t

[ProudDad]

58. Oh, yeah

"aggressive enforcement of existing laws and max sentences" has worked so fucking well so far :sarcasm:


Doing the same (stupid) things over and over again expecting a different result is a good working definition of insanity...


End the phony "war on drugs". End the phony "war on terror". Ban ALL handguns...

[jody]

67. Have a nice day. n/t

[ProudDad]

69. Why, I'm having a WONDERFUL day

Thanks! :hi:

The monsoon is finally here. There's a brilliant thunderstorm coming over the house.

All's well in my little paradise...

[dugggy]

99. why you always use profanity in every post?

Has life been so bitter for you?
If so, my condolences.

[dugggy]

98. You are so right ...Jody

Making laws is so useless if you don't enforce them.
Murder is against the law...but murders go on.
Illicit drugs are against the law...but drug trade is bigger than ever.
on and on...

[Solo_in_MD]

8. It most likely was not a real one

There are look alikes that are semi auto only. A real one is selective fie (full auto/semi auto)

The so called assault weapons ban was a travesty and should never be resurrected.

[jody]

10. I understand and if so it just shows Obama's abysmal ignorance about firearms. n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

13. His high school had a rifle team, offered riflery as PE, and hosted a JROTC unit

he should have learned something about them there...

[krispos42]

42. He probably did. But his voting bloc eats this stuff up.

It's a stump speech to his base. Regardless of facts or reality, he's getting his people fired up.

I'm on his side, and I'd prefer him to any of the other Dem candidates. But on this issue him and I disagree.

[krispos42]

41. No, what is on the streets are civvie-legal varients

Semi-automatic only variants that cannot be converted to full-auto fire. They go by a bunch of names, depending on country of origin and who imports them. But every single one is NOT full-auto, so thinking of some gang-banger using them like Iraqi insurgents is a critical error.

Regardless, the preferred weapon of choice of criminals is the handgun, not the 'deadly assault weapon'. IIRC, more people are beaten to death than are killed by rifles in general.

[sendero]

52. Like pot..

... crack, heroin, and any number of other things that are illegal.

What's your point?

[ProudDad]

59. Uh Oh Maximum

You've done it now.


Here come the creepy-crawlies from the gungeon... Ooooooooooh, we're in for it now...


:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[LBJDemocrat]

72. Took the words right out of my mouth

Some people will never understand, I guess.

[Tesha]

106. The gun lobby wants thousands of laws with *NONE* of them being effective.

That way, they get to complain that there are already
thousands and thousands of gun laws, but becuase not a
one of them is effective, they still get to strike their
guns.

I'd rather we had a single, effective gun law. And no
"law abiding gun owner" should have any fear of a law
that allowed officials to trace back a gun used in a
crime.

Tesha

[MethuenProgressive]

4. He's brave to take on the TinyPenisBigTruck NRA loons.

The NRA is the worst thing that ever happened to us normal gun owners and hunters.

[zanne]

6. AMEN!

That is one of the reasons I'm a volunteer in his campaign.

[jody]

11. Sigmund Freud said " A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity " n/t

[saltpoint]

88. Freud said that because he had a 2-inch dick.

[benEzra]

37. As a normal gun owner myself,

He's brave to take on the TinyPenisBigTruck NRA loons.

The NRA is the worst thing that ever happened to us normal gun owners and hunters.

As a normal gun owner myself, I would have to take exception to the idea that gun-owning nonhunters (who comprise 80% of American gun owners, BTW) are "TinyPenisBigTruck NRA loons."

The gun issue in 2007 isn't about the NRA (they only have 4 million members, out of 80 million gun owners total), but about a large proportion of the the ~64 million gun-owning nonhunters who see a ban-nonhunting-guns agenda as a threat. Not to mention the hunters that also own nonhunting guns (i.e., that 12-gauge pump with the 6-shot mag tube) slated for banning.

My wife and I both own nonhunting guns, lawfully and responsibly. Both of are so clean from a records standpoint, we squeak when we walk. We both have college degrees in English (B.A. for her, B.A. and some masters' work for me). We are productive and responsible members of society and of this community, we are parents to two wonderful children (one of whom is a special-needs kid), and I'm sure we share pretty much the same goals that you do. So please lay off the middle-school insults, and stay the hell out of our gun safe, please.


-------------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in 2004, largely vindicated in 2006, IMO). Background on the gun issue for non-gunnies and those who don't follow the issue closely, or "Why Hunting Is Mostly Irrelevant to the Gun Issue."

My main target, competition, and utility rifle, identical in every way to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle except for looks. It's a civilian (non-automatic) SAR-1 in 7.62x39mm, and if I ever have the privilege of going hunting, it will be with this little carbine.

Why people pushing rifle bans are stuck in the 1970's.

[MiserableFailure]

49. re-read his post ben

he is a gun owner himself he claims. not sure what you are picking on him for. he is bashing the nra, not gun owners in general

[benEzra]

51. Since he referred to Obama's "taking on" a subset of gun owners,

the context of the post (Mr. Obama's call for a ban on "assault weapons") would obviously be that he was referring to owners of "assault weapons," and it was that group that he castigated them as "TinyPenisBigTruck NRA loons." He wasn't so much bashing the NRA, as he was associating owners of "assault weapons" with the NRA, as I read him.

Of course, about twice as many people own "assault weapons," broadly defined, as hunt, so the characterization of "assault weapon" owners as somehow out of the mainstream is an incorrect one.

[Apollo11]

91. Speaking as one of the "non-gunnies"

I sure don't like being called a "non-gunny".

Makes it sound like you think I am some kind of an idiot.

But of course I won't complain, because you have a gun, and I don't.

Which means I have to consider the possibility that you might shoot me.

Even if you never would, I have to consider that possibility.

Which I guess, is the whole point of owning a gun.

Especially for all those 64 million gun-owning nonhunters.

And when we ask the gun lobby how we can prevent school shootings,

their only answer is for every teacher to carry a gun.

So the only answer to guns .... is more guns.

To a non-gunny like me, it doesn't make much sense.

Every time you say "gun" I think of bullet wounds.

And people bleeding to death on their way to the hospital.

But then I guess it's a "gunny thing".

So I wouldn't understand ... :eyes:

[benEzra]

100. No denigration meant at all.

Speaking as one of the "non-gunnies"

I sure don't like being called a "non-gunny".

Makes it sound like you think I am some kind of an idiot.

No, I meant no denigration at all. I meant it as a nonjudgmental way to refer to those who are not gun aficionados, and the post is an attempt to explain the landscape of the issue from the gun-ownership side for those who wish to understand our viewpoint.

But of course I won't complain, because you have a gun, and I don't.

Which means I have to consider the possibility that you might shoot me.

Even if you never would, I have to consider that possibility.

I wouldn't. I've never even participated in a fistfight, outside of martial arts training, in 36 years on this planet. I am a very gentle and nonviolent person.

Do you view knife owners the same way? The police? Fists and feet of large men?

I can understand where you are coming from if your only exposure to guns is that stemming from criminal gun misuse. I could also see having the same view of alcohol if one's only exposure was to the aftermath of drunk driving, or growing up in the home of an alcoholic (as my wife did). But that doesn't mean that the culture of winemaking and the enjoyment thereof is typified by the consequence of misuse; the culture is about the responsible use, and the misuse is tragic but relatively rare.

very time you say "gun" I think of bullet wounds.

And people bleeding to death on their way to the hospital.

And I think about the night having a gun dissuaded a group of men from attacking my father, when I was a child. No shots fired; they saw he had a gun, looked at each other, and left.

And I think about shooting with friends at the range, and IPSC competition, and shooting with my dad and my wife. And the zen of the martial arts, and the mental concentration required to make your body still and quiet so as to be able to position a heavy metal object with arcminute precision, and the front sight becoming your whole world for an instant, and the faint smell of nitrate and carbon, the thunder that you don't even hear because it goes around you, the mental focus. The zen. An experiences that is far, far more common than people getting shot.

Last weekend, a few hundred people in my area went to the range, and a few tens of thousands went about their daily activities with a gun in their homes. Nobody was shot, nobody bled from a gun. One thing that did happen, though--four or five people were involved in a serious alcohol-related car crash, though (head-on collision on a rural 2-lane, drunk driver crossed the line, in broad daylight); most were critically injured. But several thousand people peacefully enjoyed a glass of wine that evening.

Coins have two sides. You have seen exclusively one side, I mostly the other. Gun ownership is a serious choice and a serious responsibility. But it is a choice I reserve the right to make for myself.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Time to stop tippy-toeing around people who don't vote for us anyway

and protecting those who do.

[jody]

12. Dem platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will

keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[benEzra]

18. 50% of gun owners are Dems and indies...

Time to stop tippy-toeing around people who don't vote for us anyway and protecting those who do.

50% of gun owners are Dems and indies, and you are talking about banning the most popular civilian target rifles in America. Considering that merely raising prices on some magazine, and placing restrictions on adjustable rifle stocks, arguably cost the House AND Senate in 1994, new rifle bans would merely hand Congress back to the repubs, were they to ever pass.

It's pointless anyway, since rifles are almost never used in homicides (only 4 out of 448 murders in Illinois in 2005 involved any type of rifle).

BTW, if you don't think gun owners ever vote Dem, look at the Jim Webb vs. George Macacawitz Allen race in Virginia (2006) that turned the Senate blue. That race was won by a pro-gun-owner Dem, who defeated an NRA-endorsed repub.

BTW, food for thought:

[BeyondGeography]

22. There's a difference between gun owners

and people who see any form of gun control as anathema to freedom.

That's my point.

[benEzra]

26. Agreed.

I, for one, am comfortable with the current National Firearms Act (tight controls on all automatic weapons, over-.50-caliber firearms, suppressed firearms, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, disguised firearms, explosives, RPG's, grenades and M203-type grenade launchers, etc. etc.), most of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (prohibits possession or purchase of guns by convicted felons or those adjudicated mentally incompetent, gun tracing requirements, etc.), the armor-piercing bullet ban of 1986, the Federal background check requirement, licensure requirements in order to carry a gun, etc.

What I am absolutely opposed to are bans such as Mr. Obama was advocating on the most popular civilian guns in America. I'm not sure if you caught that, but he was talking up a ban on AR-15's, SKS's, M1 Garands, M1 carbines, civvie AK lookalikes, over-5-round shotguns, and over-10-round rifles and pistol magazines, thumbhole target stocks, protruding rifle handgrips, etc. In other words, half the guns in our family's gun safe. That would be an absolute disaster, both politically and socially, IMHO (and yes, I would view such a ban as anathema to freedom).

Rifle bans are utterly pointless anyway, since of Illinois' 448 murders in 2005, all rifles combined accounted for

-----------------
">Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in 2004, largely vindicated in 2006, IMO). Background on the gun issue for non-gunnies.

[krispos42]

45. Very true

Unfortunately, the laws that anti-gun people propose are generally designed to get the maximum amount of guns out of the hands of civilians without actually doing anything that would help society.

It seems that it is 'gun control for the sake of gun control'. That they have made the determination that a peaceful, civilized society is a disarmed one so to achieve that peace and civilization they move to disarmament. That somehow peace and civilization follow naturally and without help from disarmament. That people who own guns deliberately want strife and crudity, and therefore must be marginalized, trivialized, and brushed aside. Insert redneck jokes and 'shiny metal penises' references here.

For example, the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban. It didn't actually ban any guns, it banned certain combinations of cosmetic or ergonomic features. For example, you could have a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine, but not a semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip, detachable magazine, AND a bayonet-mounting lug.

Well, two minutes with a hand grinder will take of that bayonet-mounting lug. Use some Scotch-Brite and some cold blueing to fix up the grind marks, and now your gun is legal. Replace your pistol grip and buttstock with a traditional one, and you're legal.

More recently, Rep. McCarthy of New York, the one that had her husband killed in the Long Island Railroad shooting a decade or so ago, wanted to make it so that if you were on the no-fly list, you were also on the no-buy list that the instant background check uses.

The no-fly list is populated by people put there arbitrarily, with secret standards, no easy way to appeal, and damn little review, shrounded in secrecy. Randi Rhodes and Ted Kennedy, for example, have been on the no-fly list, without warning or foreknowledge.

There are a bunch of laws that I think should be on the books, with the intended goal of limiting criminal access to firearms and, presumebly, their use in crimes while at the same time having minimal impact on non-criminals going about their private business. But people rarely ask what laws SHOULD be on the books. They would rather get their panties in a bunch when you mention that their proposal is a bad idea. "What?!?!? Ballistic fingerprinting programs are a crock?!?!? Why do you hate America!?!?!?" is the norm.

Gun control laws that pro-gun people are against may be Constitutional. They may be legally sound. Doesn't make them a good idea, or useful, or workable, or effective.

[ProudDad]

60. Right

the only effective gun control at this point would be an absolute ban on handguns...

Melt the fucking things down and erect a monument to human stupidity from the metal...

[krispos42]

95. And even that would not solve anything

The people we need to disarm first and foremost, the chronic, career criminals, will be the last to disarm, and only when the police physically confiscate every gun from their persons and homes.

And the crime rate will climd while the homicide rate stays steady.

[Major Hogwash]

103. Do you have a source for that claim?

No, I didn't think so.

As usual.
Just an opinion.

[calteacherguy]

9. Excellent, reminds me of what Wes Clark said about assault weapons.

Something to the effect of, "If you like assault weapons, join the army. They have them there."

[Solo_in_MD]

14. Except the AWB did not ban assualt weapons, it banned semi autos that looked *bad*

[ProudDad]

61. You're right

the "assault weapons ban" as written is nearly useless.

They should have banned ALL HANDGUNS.

Those are the stupid killing machines that do the damage...

[Solo_in_MD]

73. Pistols are the embodiement of self defense

which begs the question as to why you support striping the poor, minorities, women, and other traditional targets of violence their best option for protection.

[ProudDad]

77. You really don't get it, do you?

Have you ever pulled a gun on anyone?

Or are you just cowering, hiding from the boogieman with your piece but without any real knowledge of what it's like to be on either end of a gun?


In the war zone where I lived, the "poor, minorities, women" wanted the fucking handguns OUT OF THEIR GODDAMN TOWN...

[Solo_in_MD]

80. I do get it, you want to disarm the defenseless

And yes, I have

[benEzra]

16. The military doesn't use non-automatic carbines like the "ban" covered...

Excellent, reminds me of what Wes Clark said about assault weapons.

Something to the effect of, "If you like assault weapons, join the army. They have them there."

Except the U.S. military doesn't use non-automatic civilian carbines like the "ban" covered. That statement hurt Clark because it made him look like he didn't know jack squat about Federal gun law, or what S.1431/H.R.2038 actually covered.

Modern infantry rifles like M16's and genuine AK-47's are tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act and have always been; possession outside of police/military duty is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

[BeyondGeography]

15. Some more from the speech

A call to families; some find this to be Souljah-esque, but I think the sentiment is sincere and the language is moving:

<As he has in other speeches, Obama called on parents, especially black fathers, to play a greater role in raising their children.

"There's a reason they go out and shoot each other," he said. "It's because they don't love themselves. And the reason they don't love themselves is that we are not loving them enough.">

And a nod to Jesse Jackson Jr.:

<Also in attendance at the service was Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., a Chicago colleague whom Obama said often writes some of his best lines. "My best lines on TV, Jesse wrote them," he said.>

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obamagunsjul16,1,2507768.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[bling bling]

66. That is a powerful statement. And thought-provoking, as he always seems to be.

"There's a reason they go out and shoot each other," he said. "It's because they don't love themselves. And the reason they don't love themselves is that we are not loving them enough."

[benEzra]

17. According to the FBI, Illinois had 448 murders in 2005...

According to the FBI, Illinois had 448 murders in 2005. All rifles combined accounted for only 4 of them, which is why fighting to ban the most popular civilian rifles in the United States is just wrongheaded--particularly since half of gun owners are Dems and indies.

Rifles are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been.

Otherwise a very good speech, though.


----------------
Why people pushing rifle bans are stuck in the 1970's.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in 2004, largely vindicated in 2006, IMO). Background on the gun issue for non-gunnies, i.e. "Why Hunting Is Irrelevant to the Gun Issue."

[w4rma]

19. Idiot. This will haunt him, big time, in the general, if he makes it there. (nt)

[Grandrose]

20. Name calling is totally unnecessary!

If truth telling as HE see it is haunting, so be it!:-(

[maximusveritas]

21. Oh, so you think the NRA is going to endorse Edwards?

I don't think so. They'll go after him just as hard as they do Obama. He has called for pretty much the same things Obama has. He may not have called out the NRA and he may have paid more lip service to gun owners, but they'll come after him just the same.

[w4rma]

23. No. We don't need an endorsement. We only need parity. (nt)

[benEzra]

29. Edwards has recently dropped the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch.

I think his advisers finally wised up to how badly he had been misled on the topic. FWIW, I corresponded with him on the issue in '04, before the election, as he was my senator at that time (I'm in NC). Judging from his response, he had no idea whatsoever what S.1431 actually covered; I think he actually thought it covered military automatic weapons or something.

[maximusveritas]

33. Are you saying he no longer supports renewing it?

That's news to me.

[benEzra]

38. The last speech he gave in which he mentioned the gun issue,

he did NOT mention anything about new rifle bans, which is a 180 from the position he took up until a couple of years ago (he actually left the campaign trail on Super Tuesday to go vote for S.1431, which is a big reason why the ticket lost NC later that year even as our Dem governor won easily).

I hope to God he actually got informed on the issue, but I'm inclined to think he did. I'm sure he's gotten an earful from NC Dems on the subject, many of whom are gun owners.

[Major Hogwash]

105. There was no "bait-and-switch" concerning assault weapons.

That is right-wing spin, right there.

[Colobo]

24. That idiot is polling much better and has a lot more cash than some other dude...

[Midwestern Democrat]

43. Agreed - it's as if he's never heard about 1994. (NT)

[Yavapai]

25. My 3 cents worth (adjusted for inflation).

I was a Democrat until the 2nd year of the Clinton administration. Why did I change parties you might ask? There were two reasons. #1 was NAFTA, which screwed the workingman like no other legislation ever. The second reason was all the gun control laws passed by the Democrats back then.

I worked in every presidential campaign from JFK until Clinton’s first term. I was active in local Democrat politics in California until I quit the party.

Obama has just lost any chance of getting my vote now. Same with Hillary. Think about it for a moment. If the Democrats hadn’t alienated so many people who are gun owners, Al Gore probably would have won his home state and many others and we wouldn’t have Bushalini as president now.

I live in VERY rural Arizona. If my wife and I have a 911 emergency, and road conditions are perfect, it would take a minimum of 45 minutes for law enforcement to arrive at my home. With guns I have a chance to defend myself.

Also you might want to think about Thomas Jefferson and what he said about tyranny. If Bushilini or another President down the line were to refuse to give up power at the end of his term, just how in hell would the people who haven’t weapons stop him? There is no substitute for a million-man march on Washington, particularly if they are armed.

[Colobo]

28. So you are NOT a Democrat? Mmmm....

[Sparkly]

31. "With guns I have a chance to defend myself."

Relax. Nobody's going to take away your guns. :eyes:

[MaineProgressive]

53. Really?

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban,
picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.”
– Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995

[RandomKoolzip]

54. So where in anyone's speeches does it say that the Dems will

come to your house and confiscate your guns? This seems to be a typical fear of the many pro-gun posters on DU, but I can't for the life of me EVER remember a candidate campaigning on a platform of gun confiscation. Where did this fantasy come from?

And you might want to re-read Obama's speech in context - he was talking about the streets of Chicago, NOT rural Arizona.

[MaineProgressive]

55. Here's a quote...

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban,
picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.”
– Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995

[RandomKoolzip]

56. One quote from Dianne Feinstein over ten years ago

and people believe ALL Dems want to come into their houses and take their guns away?

And the right thinks WE'RE paranoid. Sheesh.

[ProudDad]

62. Sounds like the odds against you

getting to use your arsenal range from slim to none.

Defend yourself against what???

In AZ, you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning from our monsoons than you have of getting the opportunity to blow away some "bad guy" attacking you and yours...

"just how in hell would the people who haven’t weapons stop him?" -- uh, you going up against the 82nd Airborne?


As for switching parties, how those republicans or whatever working out for you?


Welcome to DU :hi:

[illinoisprogressive]

27. too many dems have cowered from the nra lately. Bravo to Obama

[Sparkly]

30. Good!!

I agree with him, and am glad to know he said this.

[DrFunkenstein]

32. Since His Speech at Kerry's Nomination, He's Reminded Us Why

We are Democrats in the first place. Kinda the opposite of the Clintons, who muddied the waters in the first place with their Dick Morris triangulation. Good for them, bad for us.

[benEzra]

34. Except it was the triangulators (the DLC) that pushed for rifle bans in the '90s.

The Feinstein ban was the pet project of the DLC, as a way to look "tough on crime" to right-leaning authoritarians. And that attempt at triangulation cost the House AND Senate in '94, by (among other things) pissing off tens of millions of gun-owning Dems and indies.

Alienated Rural Democrat (2004)

Obama is great on a lot of issues, but IMHO not this one. Rifles simply aren't a crime problem, and fighting them is bad for the party and bad for progressive causes that most people would consider more important.

Consider the fact that had the DLC not rammed the Feinstein ban through Congress in '94, the repubs never would have flipped the Congress, we likely would be in the final years of the Gore administration, and we wouldn't be in Iraq. Not to mention things like health care and the environment.

Be careful what you wish for.

[krispos42]

46. This might interest you then...

I went through the Democratic Party platforms, I think back to Teddy Roosevelt's time, to see exactly when Democrats became 'gun-grabbers'.

Coincidently, when we began demonizing "deadly assault weapons" we began losing elections badly. Gun owners and their friends and relatives knew the truth and were disillusioned, and the gun-ignorant lapped it up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=136200

[ieoeja]

57. Pegged the Dems pretty good. But why not the Repubs?

The 2004 platform states:

We agree that the best way to deter crime is to enforce existing laws and hand down tough penalties against anyone who commits a crime with a gun. This approach is working. Since Project Safe Neighborhoods was instituted in 2001, hundreds of new federal, state, and local prosecutors have been hired to target criminals who use guns.


The 2000 platform states:

Help states ensure school safety by letting children in dangerous schools transfer to schools that are safe for learning and by forcefully prosecuting youths who carry or use guns and the adults who provide them.

A Republican administration will vigorously enforce current gun laws, neglected by the Democrats, especially by prosecuting dangerous offenders identified as felons in instant background checks. Although we support background checks to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals, we oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens.


The 1996 platform states:

We strongly support Bob Dole's National Instant Check Initiative, which will help keep all guns out of the hands of convicted felons. The point-of-purchase instant check has worked well in many states and now it is time to extend this system all across America. We applaud Bob Dole's commitment to have the national instant check system operational by the end of 1997. In one of the strangest actions of his tenure, Bill Clinton abolished Operation Triggerlock, the Republican initiative to jail any felon caught with a gun. We will restore that effort and will set by law minimum mandatory penalties for the use of guns in committing a crime: 5 years for possession, 10 years for brandishing, and 20 for discharge.


The 1992 platform states:

We call for stiff mandatory sentences for those who use firearms in a crime.


The 1988 platform states:

Republicans defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. When this right is abused by an individual who uses a gun in the commission of a crime, we call for stiff, mandatory penalties.


The 1984 platform states: Crickets


The 1980 platform states:

We believe the right of citizens to keep and bear arms must be preserved. Accordingly, we oppose federal registration of firearms. Mandatory sentences for commission of armed felonies are the most effective means to deter abuse of this right.


The 1976 platform states:

Mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a lethal weapon are the only effective solution to this problem.


The 1972 platform states:

We will strongly support efforts of all law enforcement agencies to apprehend and prosecute to the limit of the law all those who use firearms in the commission of crimes.


The 1968 platform states:

Enactment of legislation to control indiscriminate availability of firearms, safeguarding the right of responsible citizens to collect, own and use firearms for legitimate purposes, retaining primary responsibility at the state level, with such federal laws as necessary to better enable the states to meet their responsibilities.


The 1964 platform states: Crickets
The 1960 platform states: Crickets
The 1956 platform states: Crickets



Check out that 1996 platform. They were pushing for background checks and specifically criticized the Democratic nominee for opposing stricter gun control.

And more to the point the GOP controlled House from 1995-2006 did not attempt to repeal a single federal gun control law in existence. Worse yet, they controlled the House, Senate and White House during three of the last six years and again made no attempt to repeal gun control. So while some Democrats have always led the way for stricter gun control, the GOP has done no more than the Democratic Party has to stop them.

[krispos42]

92. On this issue...

and probably only this issue, they generally make more sense.

I guess it's the exception that proves the rule...

[ProudDad]

63. The operative word

"Coincidently"

Only among the most fanatic gun nuts do guns have anything to do with the Dems losses. Guns, gays and abortion shores up the right-wing base but has little effect on most Independent and Democrat voters.

The real reason the Dems have been losing is that they've tried to become republican lite...

Why should the average, stressed out, exploited and alienated American voter vote for a fake republican when they can vote for a real one that SOUNDS committed...

[krispos42]

93. I guess Bill Clinton is among the most fanatic of gun nuts, then

He wrote in his biography about that subject. It's like that stupid "intelligent design", "global warming is not our fault", or "abstinence only" shit the republicans keeps pushing. How many Repub-leaning people have changed sides because they've said "I can't vote for a party that pushes this absolute nonsense every chance they get"?

Listening too much to the DLC and the Blue Doggies didn't help, either.

[TeamJordan23]

35. He is defintely getting more polished as the campaign goes along. I like what I see. nt

[TeamJordan23]

36. More than a majority of the country is for stricter gun control according to recent polls. nm

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[benEzra]

39. Hmmm...and those numbers are sliding...

"Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on ?"


.
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %


.


"Semi-automatic handguns, which automatically re-load every time the trigger is pulled"


4/22/07
55 41 3


.


"The sale of assault weapons"


4/22/07
67 30 3


5/00
71 27 2


9/99
77 22 1


5/99
79 19 2


6/94
80 18 2


.


"People carrying a concealed weapon"


4/22/07
42 55 3


9/99
49 48 2


.


"The sale of handguns, except to law enforcement officers"


4/22/07
38 60 3


5/00
38 59 3


9/99
32 65 3

Notice the dramatic slide in the support for the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch since 1994--and it was so unpopular among gun owners of all political stripes in '94 that President Clinton himself credited the "ban" with the loss of twenty seats in the House alone.

And that much-hated law only raised prices on over-10-round handgun magazines, and didn't significantly affect rifle capacities or stock shape (unlike current proposals). Care to speculate how an outright BAN on the most popular civilian target rifles in America, plus over-10-round pistols and over-5-round shotguns, would go over?

I'll give you a hint. Think about the political cost of completely outlawing hunting in the United States (16 million hunters affected), and DOUBLE it, to come up with a minimum number of people affected. Then consider that half of those affected are Dems and indies living in swing states.

No, considering the fallout from the '94 bait-and-switch, those poll numbers don't suggest that banning popular civilian guns isn't political suicide. On the contrary, the numbers suggest that it would be even more suicidal now than it was in '94.

[TeamJordan23]

40. I think there is a difference between 'banning' rifles and 'tougher' gun control. nm

[benEzra]

44. I agree with that too. But if "tougher gun control" includes

I think there is a difference between 'banning' rifles and 'tougher' gun control

I agree with that too. But if "tougher gun control" includes banning AR-15's and other modern-looking, small-caliber civilian rifles--which happen to be the most popular civilian rifles in America--then yes, you have a problem.

The thing is, such bans are currently Priority One for the repubs at the Brady Campaign, and the rest of the U.S. gun-control lobby. H.R.1022, now pending, would ban by name the Ruger Mini-14, the M1 carbine, the AR-15, and a host of others, plus the SKS, the M1 Garand, M1A, pump shotguns holding more than 5 shells, pistol magazines holding more than 10 rounds, etc. etc.



-------------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in 2004, largely vindicated in 2006, IMO). Background on the gun issue for non-gunnies and those who don't follow the issue closely, or "Why Hunting Is Mostly Irrelevant to the Gun Issue."

My main target, competition, and utility rifle, identical in every way to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle except for looks. It's a civilian (non-automatic) SAR-1 in 7.62x39mm, and if I ever have the privilege of going hunting, it will be with this little carbine.

Why people pushing rifle bans are stuck in the 1970's.

[ProudDad]

64. Right....

"Notice the dramatic slide in the support for the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch since 1994"

Couldn't be because they didn't ban enough guns -- especially the fucking handguns that are doing the killing?

[derby378]

68. Let me guess...

Cops get to keep their handguns, right? If so, I'm not interested.

[ProudDad]

70. Nope

they'll have to learn to become "bobbies"...

No handguns...

Like the cops in Amsterdam...Amazingly Civilized City!!!

[Solo_in_MD]

74. Wrong

THe AWB was a farce.

Banning pistols is clearly supporting the historically racist gun control agenda

[ProudDad]

78. So, running out of any real arguments

now you call me a racist???

[Solo_in_MD]

81. No, I said you were supporting a position that is historically racist

[ProudDad]

83. Racist

is suggesting that only one race be disarmed.

I advocate ALL races be disarmed...

Who's supporting the racist policy now???

[Solo_in_MD]

87. Yes gun control is fundementaly racist historically and in its modern impacts as well

gun control has historically been aimed at the minority communities so they would be more venerable to the white power structure. Gun control first got a foothold in the country in the post civil war south. It was aimed at free blacks to insure that they could not defend themselves against the Klan.

Modern gun control, ala NYC has been structured so that the wealthy could get the right permits but the poor could not. Minorities, women, and immigrants are disproportionately poor. This leads to disproportionate impacts...clearly discriminatory.

Your personal issues with firearms should not be the rest of our problem. Your posting history is quite clear...you are not exactly rationale on this topic. The post that Slackmaster repeatedly points out is a case in point.

Regardless, do not expect your rants to go unchallenged by those of us who understand that personal firearms ownership, possession in our homes, and use in self defense is a strongly progressive value

[krispos42]

48. And 50% think Saddam attacked NYC, and 25% expect Jesus this calender year

There's a reason we live in a representative democracy. It is because this lawmaking stuff is too complex for everybody to simply text "Aye" or "Nay" regarding some bill or amendment.

Professional, career legislatures are suppose to be more knowledgable of the issues, to see through the propaganda and biased reporting and popular perception and marketing efforts and moral panics to do the right thing.

I bet that gun laws are far stricter than most people realize. I KNOW that a giant chunk of the country lives in states and/or cities that have laws far stricter than federal laws.

Polls like this do a lot to show people's ignorance about guns, as well. For example...

"Semi-automatic handguns, which automatically re-load every time the trigger is pulled"

And revolvers? Guns that ALSO fire every time you pull the trigger until the gun is empty? 5,6,7 rounds in a row? What about them?

"The sale of assault weapons"

If it was rephrased "The sale of semi-automatic rifles", you would, I feel, get a significant change in numbers.

[Irreverend IX]

50. It doesn't matter how many people support stricter gun control...

If answering a telephone poll is the extent of their support. I recall reading a study saying that for gun rights supporters, gun rights is typically their #1 or #2 political issue. For gun control supporters, gun control is typically #7 or #8 on their political priority list. There are millions of people who will fight passionately for gun rights, but there are only a tiny number who lie awake at night trying to come up with new ways to restrict firearms. Don't forget that the last major gun control legislation cost the Democrats both houses of Congress and enabled Bush's takeover.

[Solo_in_MD]

90. And Tom Bradley the Govenorship of California

[Irreverend IX]

47. More gun control?

Handguns are already completely banned in Chicago, and that's what the majority of criminals use. Not even a blanket federal ban on firearms would stop gun crime in the inner cities, although it would start a civil war and a hugely profitable market for illegal guns similar to the drug trade. After six years of Bush it should be blindingly clear that the government is a much bigger threat than random thugs with guns could ever be.

I would never support Obama, not just for this but because the entire Chicago political machine is irredeemably corrupt. Who knows what kind of backroom deals he cut with Daley before and during his Senate term?

[ProudDad]

65. "Handguns are already completely banned in Chicago"

and are readily available just over the city line...

Bogus, bogus, bogus...

Most of the handguns used in "criminal activity" are "legally" acquired from registered gun dealers and unscrupulous gun shops or are burgled from "law abiding gun owners"...

[Solo_in_MD]

75. how about some *honest* stats to back up your statements

[ProudDad]

71. An end to the phony "war on drugs"

along with a handgun ban would just about stop Urban gun violence.

[Solo_in_MD]

76. An end to calls for additional gun controls would be preferable

[ProudDad]

79. So do you want the phony "war on drugs" to continue

or are you just being a contrarian?

Anyone who has studied the subject at all knows that the major cause of handgun violence in the U.S. is the phony "war on drugs"...

Ending that farce would be a pre-requisite to minimizing gun violence in this benighted country.

[Solo_in_MD]

82. Its not the war on drugs its the lack of economic equity

[ProudDad]

84. Yep

you don't know what you're talking about.

This proves it...

bye :hi:

[Solo_in_MD]

89. your shallowness on the economic issues that impact the "war zone" as you call it

leads me to believe your stories are not real

[ProudDad]

96. Your shallowness about the actual impact

of the phony "war on drugs" leads me to believe that you still don't know what you're talking about.

Of course, there are deprivations caused by the appalling divide between the rich and the rest of us in this capitalist paradise. No one knows this better than I do...

But if you want to talk about economics, let's talk about the economics of the phony "war on drugs", driving the costs of drugs up to the level where it's highly profitable to continue the illicit trade. The rival, heavily armed drug dealers shooting at one another and occasionally the innocent bystander. I saw all of this in Oakland, California (among other places), up close and personal.

One simple act, end the phony "war on drugs", use some of the BILLIONS pissed away on that never-ending, never-victorious bullshit for treatment on demand and you would see handgun deaths in our cities all but disappear -- especially if urban citizens are allowed to ban and confiscate the fucking pieces of shit...

You appear to just want to make it personal because I have had guns, have pulled a gun on others and have had them pulled on me and have rejected guns as a solution to ANYTHING in a civilized society. I can visualize a world when the fucking things aren't necessary and have decided that in my life, I ain't waiting...

I live my non-violent philosophy instead of pay lip-service to it...and for some reason that pisses you off...


I tried to find some common ground with you but it appears that you just want to argue. Your pathology is also apparent to the sane members of this board as well.

[benEzra]

97. I 100% agree with you on ending the War on Non-Approved Herbs...

But if you want to talk about economics, let's talk about the economics of the phony "war on drugs", driving the costs of drugs up to the level where it's highly profitable to continue the illicit trade. The rival, heavily armed drug dealers shooting at one another and occasionally the innocent bystander. I saw all of this in Oakland, California (among other places), up close and personal.

One simple act, end the phony "war on drugs", use some of the BILLIONS pissed away on that never-ending, never-victorious bullshit for treatment on demand and you would see handgun deaths in our cities all but disappear...

I agree with you 100% on the relationship between the underground drug market and violent crime. Just like the War On Non-Approved Herbs, alcohol prohibition caused some of the highest murder rates of the entire 20th century (higher than the current rate). And I believe the main reason for the drastic fall in homicide rates beginning in the early '30's was the loosening and repeal of Prohibition.

Currently, there is wide consensus that the current "war on drugs" isn't working--it's currently easier for a person to get diacetyl morphine than prescription foot powder, and the street price of drugs is falling rather than rising--but not much consensus as to what to do about it. There are authoritarians on one side calling for essentially suspending the 4th Amendment and giving law enforcement sweeping search-and-seizure powers like those in, say, Japan; and you have libertarians on the other side calling for Netherlands-like decriminalization to reduce the huge profit incentives that currently draw criminals into the drug business. Enforce age restrictions, quality standards, educate people about effects (I mean with truth, not "DARE" B.S. that a middle schooler could see through), and in general approach it more like alcohol. Yes, there would be a downside, but I am not convinced it would be worse than the downsides we have under prohibition.

I regret to say that some years ago, I was firmly in the "tough on drugs" camp, but researching the issue changed my mind. I've never even used drugs, but I am convinced that the best thing we could do would be to legalize cannibinoids now, and think about harm reduction for the harder drugs, with an eye toward taking the profit out of the enterprise. I'm not sure what form that will take, but it's something we need to talk about. Mere drug bans and militaristic enforcement aren't working; diacetyl morphine is easier to get in any U.S. city than prescription foot powder, and it's probably cheaper.

FWIW, I don't think that gun prohibition wouldn't work any better than drug prohibition. Drugs show that even absolute prohibition on an item, consistent nationwide and enforced with the most aggressive police practices possible (even pushing the envelope on what is acceptable in a free society) can do little to reduce availability to those willing to break the law. And drugs are even a consumable item that must be constantly replenished, whereas guns last for centuries; a gun and one or two boxes of ammunition could last a criminal a lifetime.

[Solo_in_MD]

101. Actually I have not addressed the war on drugs

which is clearly a failure.

Your claim of a non-violent philosophy is at odds with your prior posts...what is the real you?

What annoys many of us is your slamming without facts, ignoring real rights, claiming a moral supremacy all without a factual basis...you are worse that the hardcore guntards...you have become what you hate.

[saltpoint]

85. I'm with Obama on this a thousand percent.

He's a great mind and I'm grateful he's in the race for our party's nomination.

[LSK]

86. meanwhile a nut in Colorado thinks he can bring a gun to the Capitol

[Major Hogwash]

104. Watch ben spin this to declare that he had the right to walk into the governor's office with a gun.

And declare himself "emperor."

[Alexander]

94. Um, the assault weapons ban is a crock.

It doesn't ban assault weapons.

[Nucular Terrorist]

102. I take it you don't follow American politics?

It doesn't ban assault weapons.

Every mediocre American politician needs a scare tactic. It's like a two-bit socialite and a "leaked" sex tape.

[benEzra]

107. To quote Mencken,

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken

---------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control