Give up on Womens right to choose RIGHT NOW; openly and publicly.

[trumad]

and then give up opposition to tax cuts RIGHT NOW; openly and publicly, and then give up Government funded Social Security and make it private, RIGHT NOW; openly and publicly, and then give up Separation of Church and State, RIGHT NOW; openly and publicly, and then give up opposition to the Death Penalty, RIGHT NOW; openly and publicly, and then give up protecting the environment, RIGHT NOW; openly and publicly................

I mean after all, we've got to be concerned about what "Joe Six pack" thinks to win elections... so why not give up our core principles to do so?

[redqueen]

1. Gun control is a 'core principle' in this party?

:shrug:

[bryant69]

2. It clearly is for some of us

Not me actually (I'm opposed to excessive gun control personally), but I can see why some people would feel passionately about that issue.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[redqueen]

3. I wonder how many... we can't accommodate everyone's wishes.

I'd tend to think the core issues are things like health care, education, tax policy (corporate & top tier especially), labor issues, protecting civil rights (choice, GLBT issues, minority rights), etc.

[bryant69]

5. Do a poll - that would be interesting

I don't know; I do think it is plays into the theory that the Democrats/Liberals are the urban party. Guns don't cause as many deaths in the rural parts of this nation (like the west or the south) and people use guns for hunting/pleasure a lot more. Guns cause a lot more deaths in the big cities what with gangs and all and just the population density; but people there are less likely to be hunters and what not.

Bryant

[trumad]

4. I honestly never could...

[EstimatedProphet]

6. But it isn't for everyone

and I would hazard a guess that it isn't really a core issue for most of the party. Not like women's reproductive rights are, or unionization, or reining in corporate welfare, for example.

[benEzra]

7. Ironic that you'd equate an ANTI-choice position with a PRO-choice position...

You don't think a woman has a right to CHOOSE to own a gun, as long as she does so lawfully and responsibly?

FWIW, banning guns isn't a progressive position. It is an authoritarian one, that in this country was originally the province of right-wing moralists and reactionaries.

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Elitists feel that only rich white people should be allowed to own guns...which is why the REPUBLICAN Brady Campaign and others support the right to own $2000 skeet shotguns and high-zoot big-game hunting rifles, but not the relatively inexpensive small-caliber carbines that are popular with we peons.

You did know that Sarah Brady is a Reagan Republican and proud of it, yes?



BTW, the ban-more-guns thing is not a core progressive principle, and IMHO betrays the Enlightenment, individualist roots of the whole progressive movement. The party did NOT adopt an anti-gun stance until the late 1980's/early 1990's, when the DLC decided that pushing for bans on nontraditional-looking guns would be a great way to look "tough on crime" to right-leaning authoritarians.

Do you know who was the brains behind the first Federal "assault weapon" bait-and-switch? Arch-right-winger William J. Bennett, czar-something-or-other under Bush the Elder...