Poll question: How much does gun control mean to you in this upcoming election?

[beevul]

If the choice was between a gun hating repuke, or a Dem nominee that was advocating gun rights and an individual rights reading o0f the second amendment, how would you choose?

[cliffordu]

1. This doesn't appeal in any manner:

I am a democrat and I am anti-gun control.



:patriot:

[MADem]

2. Well, you're a hens tooth around these parts! NT

[jody]

6. Looks like cliffordu supports the Dem Party Platform. I assume you do not. n/t

[MADem]

8. Your post makes no sense.

My point is that cliffordu is a rarity on this forum.

What's yours?

[jody]

10. cliffordu said "I am anti-gun control" meaning pro-RKBA and the Dem Party says "We will protect

Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

cliffordu supports the Dem Party platform and polls of DU members consistently show that about 65% of respondents support RKBA, i.e. the Dem Party platform.

You wrote "Well, you're a hens tooth around these parts!", I assume you meant scarce as hens teeth, but according to DU polls, we Dems who support RKBA as stated in the Dem Party platform are the majority on DU.

Those who oppose RKBA and the Dem Party platform are the minority on DU.

Although they are attempting to change their image, BO & HC have a history opposing RKBA and that part of the Dem Party platform.

[cliffordu]

11. Thanks, Jody -

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I think Obama will have a better message for the gun owners - Hillary really fucked up when she spun the yarn about hunting ducks as a kid and her voting record on gun control.

By the way - I am for aggressive criminal control.

Commit a crime with a gun, 10 years AUTOMATICALLY added to your sentence.

No fucking around. 10 years.

I'm tired of having criminals restrict my rights. (politicians try to limit access to guns instead of limiting access to criminals...HHAHAHAHAH)




:patriot:

[jody]

12. "10 years AUTOMATICALLY added to your sentence." Absolutely, not served concurrently.

The only sure way for BO & HC to erase the perception among voters that they are gun-grabbers is to promise voters, "I will veto every bill that comes to me as president that infringes upon the natural, inherent, inalienable right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense".

No excuses for past statements, or votes, or association with people/groups that want to ban handguns, semiautomatic firearms, or all guns.

Just a simple, unconditional promise to veto such bills!

In spite of their anti-RKBA history, I will vote for either of them in the GE but my Yellow Dog Democrat vote is not enough to put one of them in the White House.

The electorate is about 200 million people and 122 million voted in the 2004 election. That means a candidate needs about 61 million votes to guarantee a win.

There are about 80 million gun owners including about 35 million handgun owners.

Given the need for 61 million votes to win, why would any presidential candidate alienate 80 million gun owners including 35 million handgun owners?

[MADem]

13. That's not been my experience.

I don't know what polls you're looking at, but most people I've encountered here over the years are "pro gun control" of some sort--i.e., they want access to firearms limited, controlled, licensed or something along those lines. Certainly, there are plenty who don't have a problem with keeping or bearing arms, but they want to limit the type of arms, or license the user, or restrict the number of arms available to any one individual.

That may not be true within the subset of the "gun" forum, but overall that has been the case.

[jody]

14. We've been over this issue so many times that I tire of finding DU links. Polls taken in GD forum

have always shown that respondents support the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

I see you and I disagree.

I can live with my belief based on fact and others can live with their beliefs based on fantasy.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[MADem]

19. Whatever. All I know is that on this forum, I've observed a qualification aspect to the whole

'keep and bear' debate. Keep, fine, so long as you don't keep too many, and bear, sure, so long as they're the right "type" and someone IN GOVERNMENT has a record of who has them and how many they have.

I'm not commenting on this qualification aspect beyond saying that it does exist. I'm not speaking of "belief" either. I'm speaking solely of prevalent attitude, backed up by statements over the course of years.

Most of DU is NOT on the "fully unfettered" Keep And Bear bandwagon, government totally out of the picture, NRA standard--they just aren't. You can have your gun(s), but they want Officer Friendly to have a card with your name on it, your weapons listed by identifying serial number, and they want you to have gone through a course of instruction, and/or carry a "license" so that your ownership of weapons can be traced. Or something that intersects with those caveats.

That's "gun control" according to those who take the view that it's just not the government's business who owns a gun and who doesn't.

[iverglas]

20. this is fucking hilarious

jody and MADem differ not a whit in their views. And they both exhibit total disdain for anyone who doesn't share them.

They eat their young when left to their own devices, they do.

[MADem]

21. Who's "eating young?" What's wrong with you? Why is everything such DRAMA?

I'm having a reasonable little discussion. It's not World War Three, so why are you characterizing it thusly, with terms like "total disdain?"

Find yourself a hobby, you're plainly bored.

[iverglas]

22. oooooh -- posts all about moi!

I love 'em! Wuvving my growing fan club, more every day!

A "reasonable discussion". Yeah, that's how I usually characterize jody's use of the "have a nice day" wave. Hahnot.


You tell cliffordu he's scarce as hen's teeth -- an observation, not an opinion about the observed phenomenon.

jody "assumes" you don't support the Democratic Party's platform.

You tell jody his post makes no sense -- and of course you're absolutely right.

jody says cliffordu supports the Democratic Party's platform -- which, cliffordu having said he is "anti-gun control", is plainly absurd and false.

You and jody continue bickering about how anti-gun-control DU may be in the aggregate.

jody posts his usual misrepresentation of what polls at DU (as if they're worth something) establish, refers to you (please, it's obvious) as having "beliefs based on fantasy", and dismisses you with his usual charming hand-wave idiotfacethingy.

You respond with "whatever".


You know ... come to think of it ... this may indeed be about as close as we get to "reasonable discussion" in this place ... or maybe it's what some people honestly believe "reasonable discussion" is ...

Don't miss Pellet Gun Bill!

[maxidivine]

33. You are incredible

really, a bright and shining gem of a human.

[iverglas]

15. of course, jody has yet to explain

how he managed to "assume" any such thing from what was actually said.

But then being jody is about never having to answer questions.

[SteveM]

30. "Hen's tooth?" I hope you are being sarcastic! (nt)

[Firethorn]

16. Exactly...

Where's the 'I'll happily vote Democrat with my head held high!' option?

Or the 'I'll be voting Democrat despite the fact that my party's candidates this time around have horrible gun rights records'?

[beevul]

17. That would be...

"Or the 'I'll be voting Democrat despite the fact that my party's candidates this time around have horrible gun rights records'?"

That would be in the other poll, the one asking "how much do guns mean in the coming election".

[TheUniverse]

3. Is the Democrat you are describing Howard Dean?

Certainly sounds like someone worth voting for!

[SheilaT]

4. While I think we need a lot more gun control,

it's not really going to be a factor in the upcoming election.

And keep in mind that "pro gun-control" does not necessarily mean wanting to take guns away from citizens, and "anti-gun control" does not necessarily mean arming all citizens.

It seems to me that it's a very personal choice, sort of like the abortion issue. I personally do not own a gun and have no desire to own one. I, personally, think there ought to be restrictions on who owns a gun, and that new gun owners ought to be trained or certified in some way, somewhat similar to the way states certify and license drivers.

I am sure there are those on this forum who disagree with me on some or all of these points. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm right and they're wrong, nor vice-versa. Those who own guns, those who are trained in their use, those who hunt, all of those people are quite different from those who have never held a gun, never hunt, never want to. Sometimes it feels to me as if we're being set up to oppose each other. But (speaking only for myself) I've never owned a gun, have no desire to own one, and am personally totally unmoved by arguments about hypothetical scenarios. But I sincerely respect those who choose to own guns, who do worry about scenarios of various kinds. And I also sincerely believe that we can live together, with reasonable laws and/or restrictions.

In short, don't make my buy a gun, and don't take away the gun from a reasonable, law-abiding citizen.

And no matter what, I'll repeat that this issue is not a factor in the upcoming election, at least not for me. No matter what any candidate says, no matter how different from my viewpoint, this is not an issue that will change my vote.

[2rth2pwr]

5. How about letting people who don't have a gun buy one?

[SheilaT]

9. That's what we already have.

Getting guns is phenomenally easy in this country.

[Traction311]

23. Your ass it's easy :)

Try living in NYC. I want a carry permit, and my record is clean. I'm also 35 and have a steady job. Why should I be denied?

[iverglas]

24. uh, your bicycle it's purple

poster says:

Getting guns is phenomenally easy in this country.

you say:

Try living in NYC. I want a carry permit, and my record is clean. I'm also 35 and have a steady job. Why should I be denied?



And the connection between those two things is ...

[Traction311]

25. I see a whopping huge connection

It's NOT easy to get a legal gun n NYC, and damn near impossible to get a carry permit.

[iverglas]

26. well, you see ...

It's NOT easy to get a legal gun n NYC, and damn near impossible to get a carry permit.

... if SheilaT had said anything about getting a LEGAL gun, and if anybody had said anything at all about getting a carry permit ... well, then, you might have been saying something relevant to the post you replied to.

[Howzit]

39. Criminals may be latent gun owners, but that does not mean gun owners are latent criminals.

If your point is that criminals will break the law to get guns, then more gun control laws are hardly going to be more effective. Gun control disarms only those who seek to abide by the law. Not the group you need to worry about IMO.

[Firethorn]

18. Gun control already exists...

<i>I, personally, think there ought to be restrictions on who owns a gun, and that new gun owners ought to be trained or certified in some way, somewhat similar to the way states certify and license drivers.</i>

There are already restrictions on who owns a firearm. To legally own a firearm, you can't be a felon*, convicted of even misdemeanor family abuse, under a restraining order, or been committed by a court.

<i>and that new gun owners ought to be trained or certified in some way, somewhat similar to the way states certify and license drivers.</i>

Did you know, you don't need a DL in order to own a car? Still, in all areas in order to go hunting you need training in hunter's safety and in almost all areas to carry a gun around concealed, you need a CCW permit, that requires training and testing besides the investigation in order to get.

<i>In short, don't make my buy a gun, and don't take away the gun from a reasonable, law-abiding citizen.</i>

Honestly, this is all 99% of gun owners ask for. Leave us alone, go after the criminals. We don't want to require anybody to own a gun if they don't want to. We just want them to be able to if they, being a law abiding citizen, to be able to if they want to.

<i>And no matter what, I'll repeat that this issue is not a factor in the upcoming election, at least not for me. No matter what any candidate says, no matter how different from my viewpoint, this is not an issue that will change my vote. </i>

This is the important part. It's not a real issue to you, but it is to me. Right now I'm given the choice of holding my nose and voting or just staying home.

[SteveM]

31. There is a mantra: "...this issue is not a factor..."

in common circulation among progressive activists. I have heard it so much that it sounds like wishful thinking. If the GE is reasonably close (and many say it will be) then the "gun issue" has the potential to be a decisive. Bill Clinton said it was the deciding factor in Al Gore's loss in 2000, it was clearly a factor (not the only) in Congressional losses and in Kerry's defeat in 2004.

The so-called "gun vote" has been described as the largest single-issue voting bloc in the U.S., supported in large measure by the most powerful and perhaps most sophisticated special interest group in the U.S.: the NRA. I don't like that group's GOP slant, but I cannot deny its power to communicate with and mobilize the activist "gun-rights" base. If Obama/Clinton have big leads going into November, gun issues will be less strong; if BO/HRC have slim leads, gun issues will be the troll standing at the bridge.

The issue may be mitigated by a "pro-gun rights" decision by the SCOTUS. (It is ironic that one of the most conservative Supreme Courts in history may bail out the "liberal" political party from a mess of their own making.)

BTW, "licenses," "certifications," etc. are what undermines your position of "this is not an issue." Gun rights activists are highly sensitive to these measures and believe -- rightly -- that "this is not an issue" Democrats will once again resume their old ways with a new president. For a good read on the pitfalls of regulatory schemes, bring up www.georgiacarry.org and scroll down to Heller brief. This group provides a fine summary of how licenses, certifications, taxes, etc. were used to systematically keep guns out of the hands of blacks. It also makes reference to the history of the 14th Amendment and how it came about chiefly due to denial of Southern blacks' rights to keep and bear arms by Southern states. (More irony.)

[iverglas]

34. the other mantra is: "Bill Clinton said ..."

... the "gun issue" has the potential to be a decisive. Bill Clinton said it was the deciding factor in Al Gore's loss in 2000, it was clearly a factor (not the only) in Congressional losses and in Kerry's defeat in 2004.

I have never yet seen anyone substantiate that allegation. To my knowledge, it is false.

And before anybody goes cutting and pasting the standard bumph: an assertion that highly organized and well funded opposition by a large right-wing organization was a contributing factor in the defeat is NOT an assertion that "the gun issue" was any factor at all.

[Wickerman]

7. cool poll, Beevul

:kick: to prevent it sinking like a stone.

[Politically Homeless]

27. A lot

How much does gun control mean to you in this upcoming election?

A lot. I'm voting a straight Republican ticket because of it.

We gun owners are going to keep you Democrats out of the White House until you get your minds right about the Second Amendment and nominate pro-gun people like Bill Richardson instead of liberal, elitist snots like Hillary and Obama, who can barely conceal their disdain for us and our guns.

When are you going to get the tar and feathers out and run these gun grabbing idiots out of your party? In '04 you lost an almost unlosable election because of them. Just about the only thing that could make guys like me me vote for Bush was the prospect of losing our guns, and we did.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Wickerman]

29. Just about the only thing that could make guys like me me vote for Bush was the prospect of losing o

Just about the only thing that could make guys like me me vote for Bush was the prospect of losing our guns, and we did.

Yes, actually, in New Orleans you did lose your guns. Oh, that and your posting privileges, thanks for stopping by. This board is for Democrats and Progressives, as per the rules you agreed to when you registered. We support the Democratic Party who supports all liberties - unlike Bush and the Republicans who only give lip service to liberty while they steal it with enthusiasm.

[facepalm]

32. is this poll misworded or a trick question?

A pro gun democrat versus an anti gun republican? Hasn't this been the matchup we have all been waiting for? And to think, we could have had it in 2004 if we hadn't thrown Howard Dean to the wolves.

[beevul]

35. Kick. N/T

[pipoman]

36. I have believed this for a long time

The party would loose far less votes by abandoning the gun control issue than is lost by embracing it.

[beevul]

37. Kick. N/T

[beevul]

38. Kick N/T