Gun control on the Democratic platform: stay or go?

[JohnnyCougar]

[aquart]

1. In my present mood?

Everyone should have one. Even teeny tiny babies. Put 'em in the crib.

[JohnnyCougar]

2. especially psychopathic freeper hunters.

maybe they'll end up killing themselves over a dispute over a football game.

[Leilani]

3. LOL!!!!!!!!

Hysterical!

[UNIXcock]

11. your humor is irresponsible and disturbing ...

... please try harder on your next post :puke:

[el_gato]

13. your lack of humor is boring and lame

[Lone Pawn]

28. I find your lack of humor disturbing...

[ibegurpard]

4. I've changed my position on this

6 years ago, I would have been vehemently pro-gun-control. Now I'm thinking that I'm glad we never managed to take it that far.

[billyoc]

5. A worthless plank in the platform. n/t

[readmoreoften]

6. After living in TX for a few years

The idea started to make sense to me. People fight less in TX than up here in the northeast because...hell, you never know who's packing.

Also, my partner used to be a farmer before s/he came out as a flaming queer and had to leave the industry. S/he says a gun is essential to protect your animals from wild animals. Make gun laws local.

Naturally, we don't need them in NYC, but in Austin... maybe not so much.

But beyond that I want to be able to protect my homeland from the christo-fascists if I need to. All assault weapon bans do is increase your ability to kill more things more quickly. I mean, the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic is slight. I say drop the issue.

[Journeyman]

7. If they'll leave the First Amendment alone. . .

I'll not make demands on the Second.

(That's what the past four years have taught me.)

[donheld]

8. We may need those assault weapons

to take back our country

[FreeStateDemocrat]

9. The Democratic Party needs to be more selective in picking fights.

Save the political capital and effort for causes that are not yet completely lost and will have broader meaningfulness to the working class. Social Security, healthcare and minimum wage seems much more significant in representing a broad constituency’s interests. Identifying with futile wedge issues only results in the present political nightmare. Morally it makes you feel better but it leaves you powerless to influence any meaningful changes in our society.

[mazzarro]

10. Why do people presume that "gun control" equals "gun banning"?

I see gun control as a sensible way of assuring that the society keeps track of dangerous implememnts. That won't stop reasonable ownership of guns. And besides, even if a population has to fight and invading armym having all the guns in the world will not do much if population does not have the will and the supporting strategu to resist the invasion. We see it in Iraq today.

[BiggJawn]

12. Because that's the way the anti-gun crowd presents it.

Every state and the Federal government already has volumes of laws regulating EVERY facet of firearm making, ownership, and use. But the anti-gun factions of the Left won't be happy until they have an out-and-out BAN of firearms, "Just like they have in England"...(I suppose they think Pheasant hunters use their bare hands?)

"I see gun control as a sensible way of assuring that the society keeps track of dangerous implememnts."
Well, like I said, we have plenty of laws designed to do that. It's an unfortunate fact of human nature that people will violate those laws.
We haven't outlawed corporate CEO's based on the actions of Ken Lay and his ilk, have we?

[ElectroPrincess]

14. Go go go ...

I've always wanted to legally mount a Cal 50 on my rooftop.

Whoa! Let's hope that dream never gets realized. LOL

[immoderate]

15. Where do you live? It might be legal.

--IMM

[Walt Starr]

16. It must go.

We could keep it if anything done in the way of cgun control over the past twenty years actually did any good, but it hasn't.

Get stricter on enforcement of existing gun control laws first, then enact new ones if necessary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Replace it with real gun control.

Not the pantywaist pablum that now exists.

[fujiyama]

18. I say ADIOS!

It's not helping the party in the least. Some northeast states are happy with stricter gun control, while even those like VT that don't have it are still safer than most of the south.

This nation is violent at its core. We live in a violent society, with or without guns. I say it doesn't even matter.

[funkybutt]

19. Good thing that hunter had a semi-automatic and 20 rounds

who would dear hunt without it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Good Idea!! More pandering to the rightwing!

What is this the "Rambo" wing of the DLC Party?

[cattleman22]

21. Rural-Urban divide

Even in blue states, the rural areas are pretty red. In my opinion, the gun control issue is the single most important factor preventing democrats from making more inroads into rural areas.

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. You're absolutely correct.

I live in a very 'red' area of a very 'blue' state, but gun-control drives people away from our candidate, even when they agree with 90% of what the candidate has to say. If he/she supports gun control, they're dead in the water here.

[maxsolomon]

23. lets have some "well-regulated militias", too.

why don't we concentrate on that?

i think seattle could use a GLTS armed militia patrolling capitol hill. i'd like to see that.

[a new day]

24. I going out to the firing range regularly, now

I'm not leaving myself defenseless. Neither did Eldridge or Huey.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. I voted your third option ... toned down ... but

I have been all over the lot on this issue over the years. Now, I am not a gun owner, but have been in the past. There was a time when I wanted a gun burning and to have all of them destroyed (fringe-left). There was a time when I felt we should all be armed (fringe-right).

My best idea (I thought) was to allow ownership of any gun type by anyone, anywhere, with no restrictions ...... except one. All guns, no matter the type, would need to be registered and have fired rounds on file for possible future forensics matching. Further, all guns would be kept in a locked armory, but with 24/7 access to all gun owners. The best place for these armories? Police stations. If you want your gun, go get it. Any time. No questions asked. Sign out for it and do what you wish. Part and parcel of this would be very, very heavy penalties for gun crimes or for owning an unregistered arm.

But that's just pie in the sky, I suspect.

So where am I now? In my gut, I want to burn all guns. Logically, in the US, right now ........ ain't gunna happen. So I think the best thing for now is to back off of really strident gun control and instead go for quiet little victories ...... bans on heavy assault weapons ..... better background checks ....... realistic penalties for gun crime ..... and maybe the best course right now ...... draconian penalties for owning an unregistered gun and for the use of such a gun in a crime. In my view, mere ownership of an unregistered gun should get serious jail time. Sorta turns the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" thing on its head. Who could object?

[fnottr]

26. interesting idea about keeping them at police stations

however people in rural areas can't reasonably be expected to drive all the way to the nearest town just to get their gun. And it is in these rural areas where the gun control issue hurts us the most. Also, gun owners often cite self defense as a reason to keep a gun, and this plan also would prevent that.

[turnkey]

30. Bad idea...

This would be akin to putting the Fox in charge of the Chicken Koop!!

[Stinky The Clown]

33. Actually, as I envisioned this whole thing ......

.... any gun owner could check a certain number of guns and keep them checked out as long as they want to, with only a renotification provision back to the "armory" .... maybe once a year ... whatever. The point is, a rancher who wants to shoot predators could keep his gun handy all the time. A wife in the suburbs could have her gun handy for protection when her husband is traveling.

The real point here is not to keep guns out of owners hands but to be able to track them if need be with fresh "audit trails". The slugs from a bank robbery could be traced back to a national database and the owner found. If he did it, they got 'im. If the gun was stolen, they know which petty burglary investigation to turn the heat up under. If the slug doesn't match, then we're no worse off than now.

<on edit - spelling and fatfinger typos>

[fnottr]

37. thanks for the clarification

Though, I think it would make more sense to have some sort of registration/licencing situation for gun owners. Just a simple test along the lines of what we already do for drivers licences.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Stinky The Clown]

40. "You people"???????

"You people"????? Who are *you*?

Enjoy your stay in our humble abode ........

[cattleman22]

29. About Police holding all guns

That completely defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment if government agencies hold all of the gun. If government possesses all of the guns, that makes it way too easy for government to simply take over ownership.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. see my reply to another post, above

[Lone Pawn]

27. Go. We have to pick our battles.

eom

[cheezus]

31. exactly, we've given in to the GOP on everything else

we'd better give in on this one too so we can win whatever battle we think it is that we'll actually win

[ieoeja]

32. I don't care if it is losing issue.

Or a winning issue. I just want to close this one glaring exception to the fact that on all other civil rights issues we are the party that supports rights of the individual over that of the state or the federal government. That is 99% of the reason I vote Democratic.

It completely befuddles me that the Republican party elects members who openly brag about creating a "Bill of Un-Rights" and demonizes an organization whose sole purpose is the protection of individual liberty (the ACLU). How could they stake out such a position ... and be winning?!?

[imenja]

35. ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons, a real ban

but as much as I wish it were otherwise, far-reaching gun control is a losing proposition in this country. And we have the murder rate to prove it.

[JohnKleeb]

36. what parts of it exactly

I really don't have a problem with gun control. I wish we could explain it better honestly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Lose it, I'm afraid.

I'm a fully fledged gunb-grabber, but I don't think keeping it on the platform is worthwhile

I have no doubt that gun control laws save lives (look at the relative frequencies of shootings in countriestin the US and over here in the UK), but a Democratic president would save more, and keeping it on the platform brings conservatives out to vote in droves.

There are too many other issues where one gets better value for money from political capital. You're not going to win this one in the short term, and fighting for it is just shooting yourselves in the feet.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. "and fighting for it is just shooting yourselves in the feet"

So to speak .... :-)

[slackmaster]

42. Existing laws aren't being enforced

IMO if we have a platform it should be to aggressively prosecute anyone who tries to buy a gun and fails the National Instant Check System (NICS) "Brady" background check.

At that point the person has already signed a sworn statement that he or she is not a prohibited person. Unless the NICS rejection is erroneous, the person has committed perjury and could be sent to federal prison for 5 years. But only about 1% of people rejected by NICS ever face charges.

For general information see http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/index.htm

[hnsez]

43. the direction this country is going we all need to arm ourselves