I wonder how much *** would hit the fan if the Democratic party

[Road Scholar]

started it's own version of the NRA, with a basic mission to be supportive of legitimate gun owners, and
counter the misleading claims of the NRA. The NRA has evolved into big time lobbying effort and gun ownership has become secondary and is mostly a cover for the right-wing nut jobs.I would love to see some of their claims called out. I'm a law abiding gun owner and really get tired of the political distortions by the NRA. I think it's high time they had some competition.I'm just wondering. Please give me your thoughts on this. :shrug:

[brooklynite]

1. zzzzzzz.....

Remember the "conservative alternative" to the AARP that set up shop during the Social Security privatization debate? Neither does anyone else.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

2. BRAVO CITIZEN

THIS WARRANTS LOOKING INTO

[jakem]

3. you mean where gun owners don't demand their semi-automatics for hunting?

sounds good to me! (as a non gun owner)


of course, the NRA would probably have you killed....

[SteveM]

4. Hunters have been using semi-autos for over a century. Know what time it is?(nt)

[Road Scholar]

7. Maybe so, I'm sure they would try, but they have grown beyond

anything reasonable. Maybe you should have to qualify for certain types of gun ownership. There are cases where semi autos could be legal as long as the owner proved a degree of responsibility. There are reasonable ways to solve those things as long as reasonable people are trying to solve them.

[SteveM]

25. Of course, it all depends on what is "reasonable"...

As noted above, semi-autos have been used in hunting (as well as self-defense) since the late 1800s. It's nothing new, and most people didn't miss a beat during all that time. But since "semi-auto" has been made the bete noire of evil things in our society, we hear talk of being reasonable. We should be reasonable. We should recognize that semi-auto rifles have been used for hunting, semi-auto pistols and rifles have been used for home defense, and there is little evidence to show that these weapons have cause mayhem in our society. For example, less than three (3) percent of all homicides can be traced to ANY rifle and the panic-in-the-streets "assault weapon" (semi-auto rifle of moderate power) is only one type within that three percent.

Not a very reasonable thing to fear.

While I favor folks getting training with semi-auto guns, it should not be mandatory for home defense. If one wishes to carry-concealed (using ANY type of weapon), then the state has an interest in regulation, training and licensing.

BTW, how reasonable is it for the Democratic Party to continue to post, doggedly, truculently, with little to show for past efforts but losing elections, its position of yet another "assault weapons" bans? These arms which have been used by the vast majority of their owners quite reasonably.

[jeepnstein]

34. As long as

you qualify before exercising speech or going to church, then yeah, I'll qualify with my arms.

[Howzit]

35. I don't want irresponsible people to own any kind of guns

To me, a single shot rifle fired deliberately from a distance is much more scary than a semi-auto close up because no one knows where the shots are coming from or if they might become a target. Add to that, the perp has already left "the scene of the crime" and can carry on tomorrow somewhere else.

The DC sniper used a semi-auto as a single shot, killed a bunch of people and could have gotten away with it.

It is not magazine capacity that matters, but mental capacity. If the latter is a few cards short of a full deck, then no guns for that sucker. The question is how does one gage mental capacity or the propensity toward future crime?

The idea that anyone who collects "assault rifles" is more dangerous than someone with only one hunting rifle is nonsense - if a guy is going to go on a rampage, one weapon is enough. If someone has owned weapons for years without showing a disregard for the safety of his fellow humans, then what difference does it make if he keeps adding to his collection?

If I own two cars, does that increase my risk of having a crash? No, because I can only drive one at a time. If I like cars and can afford to buy many, does that make me a dangerous nut? http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/

As long as gun owners use and store their guns in a way that does not add risk to the general public they should be free to do so without inflaming those that feel the need to protect you from yourself.

[tburnsten]

42. Interesting tidbit about the D.C. sniper

one of his intended victims, probably in Virginia, at a gas station was a concealed carrier and fired back at the van with his Beretta. Obviously someone behind decent cover (service caliber pistols are notoriously bad at getting through vehicle material), basically concealed, and with a rifle should have made short work of the fellow who fired back, but they just took off. The man was unharmed, thanks to his ability and equipment which allowed him to effectively protect his own life.


None of the D.C. snipers' other victims were able to shoot back, most of them did not fare nearly as well as the man who shot back.

[iiibbb]

5. There have been a few...

... but they are quickly labeled so they don't have any pull in congress. Gun owners are pretty darn conservative. Some of them even think the NRA doesn't go far enough so they have the GOA.

The left burned up there credibility years ago, and it will take a long time for them to get it back... even if they wanted to.

The AWB cost them a lot. It is the functional equivalent of what Bush lost us in terms of international credibility when we invaded Iraq... and at the end of the day I don't think he sees it or cares. I don't think the gun-control proponents see it or care what it cost them.

[On the Road]

6. I Believe Such a Group Was Founded in the 90s

but I can't recall their name.

[SteveM]

26. It may be American Hunters and Shooters Association...

http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=131&Itemid=33

This organization has, according to some, grown stagnant because some of its founding members were closely association with gun-control organizations. As a old poli-sci professor once said: "Great potential, solid mediocrity in action."

It should be noted that as far as hunting goes (just 20% of gun-owners), some conservation groups have had to face considerable anti-hunting attacks and "infiltration" within their own ranks which provides more fuel for the fire the NRA stokes.

[tburnsten]

27. AHSA is so full of shit

Those guys don't even try to hide their iron ties to such classic anti-gun groups as the Brady Campaign and friends, they are a worthless group with no membership because they are a fake front. They are only interested in hunting and shooting as a means to try and convince some gun owners to merrily go along with the whole "assault weapons" idiocy to try and make it appear that "responsible" "hunters and shooters" have no use for and support their elimination.



They think gun owners are brick-stupid and they run their dumb little group with the same level of secrecy and deception that the million mom march, brady campaign, and VPC use, probably because they are the same people.

[jody]

31. No reason to disagree with your astute summary as all should know from the Wiki summary of AHSA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association

[jody]

8. IMO our Party and Obama could remove RKBA from the political debate by changing our platform to say.

"We recognize that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right as declared in Pennsylvania’s constitution in 1776, Vermont’s constitution in 1777 and thirty-seven other state constitutions and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.”

Then reject the 2008 Democratic Party platform that says:

Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Note the phrase “reinstating the assault weapons ban” is a bait-and-switch scheme to ban semiautomatic firearms, e.g. H.R. 1022.

[katandmoon]

9. Don't gun owners get enough stroking?

[jody]

10. Apparently not because Obama and Biden are now declaring their support for the 2nd Amendment.

It could be that the campaign advisers to Obama/Biden finally acknowledge that the perception among voters that Gore and Kerry were gun-grabbers cost them the White House in 2000 and 2004.

[Road Scholar]

11. The leadership claims that Obama is a gun grabber. That folks

like me will be defenseless. How many million votes will that lie get McCain? That is my point.

[virginia mountainman]

14. It's not very much of a lie..

How many pro-2nd Amendment votes has Obama made since he entered politics in Illinois?? Can't think of ONE.

How many anti-civil rights votes has he made?? MANY, practically every chance he got, he voted against the bill of rights on this issue.

When you look at the record, it is bleak. This is the primary reason, I refused to support him in the primaries. Granted his recent views have moderated, but I am leery of just how he would vote if given the chance.

[jody]

16. There are over 54 million gun owners in an electorate of 200+ million of which 122+ million voted in

2004.

Obama needs about 61 million votes to win so why would his campaign advisers want to alienate 54 million potential voters?

Pro-RKBA members of DU have been preaching that message since the inception of DU but the anti-RKBA contingent of DU, perhaps 35% of participants, refuse to acknowledge the obvious that RKBA can win or lose presidential elections.

[iiibbb]

12. Gore lost because of one quote...

...about banning handguns. Flat out that cost him big.


Kerry didn't lose _just_ because of that. If you listen to any of Kerry's interviews from the last election and you'll see that he lost because he uses 20 words where 2 will do. Kerry really ran a bad campaign; although I think the legacy of the AWB didn't help him.

[virginia mountainman]

13. Evidently not enough..

We keep getting our asses kicked at the polls over it.

Odd, we seem to be openly hostile to a large group of citizens that want their civil rights.

[krispos42]

17. We don't want stroking

We want to be left alone.

[Road Scholar]

19. Remarks like that often sidetrack a perfectly civilized

conversation into the ditch. I was hoping this would evoke a constructive conversation that could solve a problem for the democratic party.

[jody]

20. I agree, "into the ditch" and possibly another loss of a presidential election. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. I don't know, how many do you stroke?

How often do you stroke them?

[doc03]

15. That idea was brought up 4 years ago on DU apparently

nothing ever come of it.

[AndyTiedye]

18. The NRA Represents the Interests of Gun MANUFACTURERS First and Foremost

Gun MANUFACTURERS LOVE the Republicans, because the Republicans are the WAR party!

Sure, they like to sell guns to hunters and fearful citizens and people who just like to play with guns.
But that's a drop in the bucket compared to the market provided by a nice, big WAR!

[jody]

21. NRA has 4+ million members of over 54+ million gun-owners. It's a red herring to focus on the NRA's

4 million while ignoring the other 50 million potential voters.

Note the electorate is 200+ million of which 122+ million voted in 2004 so a presidential candidate needs perhaps 62 million votes to win.

Why would a presidential candidate ignore 54 million potential votes?

[Road Scholar]

22. It would be political sucide to outlaw guns or ownership or take

any other strong stance with so many gun owners in the country. NRA is getting a free ride using the fear tatic. I do however believe that there are reasonable ways to solve some of the legitimate concerns.

[iiibbb]

23. I also beleive there are reasonable ways...

...I wish people were willing to discuss them. As it is the Dem Party has the AWB monkey on it's back. While that's their flagship idea for "sensible gun control", and with those who continue to demonize gun owners, you can expect the NRA to have an easy sell of their message.

[jody]

24. I agree with you but IMO our Party could take a tiny step in the right direction by rewriting our

platform to recognize the legitimate concerns of the pro-RKBA group which represent perhaps 60-70 percent of those who say they are Democrats. I believe nationwide over 35% of the electorate claim to be Democrats.

Our party had a chance this election cycle to take that step but chose to include the phrase "reinstating the assault weapons ban" that is a scheme to ban semiautomatic firearms.

I agree with your position.

[SteveM]

28. NRA & GOP getting a free ride because the DNC punches the ticket...

every time. The DNC could not, would not, take the AWB out of the Platform. May as well have invited the GOP into the house no matter WHO was nominated by the Democrats.

I have mused on this for years, but can't find a reasonable answer. Why, WHY does the Democratic Party persist in telling the GOP to just pour it on? I know the Brady Center is GOP-founded and organized, yet there is too much passion, too much culture war, too much hatred to explain this beyond positing yet another conspiracy theory.

If anyone has the answers, please post.

[jody]

29. It's "tinfoil hat" but IMO the corporate party funds both sides of divisive-polarizing political

issues to keep the working class fighting while corporatist candidates from both parties are elected.

Then when bills come along to reduce taxes on corporations, dividends, capital gains, and estates the corporatists can expect bipartisan support.

Then when a president signs a bill to increase the strangle-hold corporatists have over U.S. financial wealth, he/she can have a media event with senior members from both parties present and all can proudly proclaiming what a great step forward because the new law had the bipartisan often nearly unanimous support of the representatives of We the People.

The trick is to do it so slowly that voters are not stampeded into revolting at the ballot box every two years and reclaiming their government.

In W.W.II, Norman Rockwell painted pictures depicting the "Freedom Of Speech", "Freedom of Worship", "Freedom from Want", and "Freedom from Fear". They became famous as posters for the war effort, perhaps the greatest moment in the history of these United States. Unfortunately, those cherished freedoms are in danger from people who would change the very foundation of our constitutional form of democracy.



The result will be or already is the following.

[Howzit]

37. Norman Rockwell: The big divide is reflected in the question

"freedom from", provided by the collective; or "freedom to", inherent in each individual?

[jody]

38. You have my attention. I used the titles from Rockwell's posters without considering alternatives.

Please help me understand the point you make so I can consider redoing the graphics.

Thanks for your post and have a pleasant evening. :hi:

[Howzit]

40. I don't think you need redo the graphics

There seems to be a general split between the political left and right that falls along the lines of "freedom from" (insert adversity) and "freedom to" (insert activity). For example: freedom from hunger, oppression, and crime; and freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

This isn't clear cut, as there is massive overlap, except it seems when it comes to who is responsible for protecting you from criminal threats of physical harm: When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away...

Just an observation.

[jody]

41. Thanks for sharing your insight. Have a pleasant evening. n/t

[Howzit]

36. "Republicans are the WAR party"

Other than the completely idiotic and unnecessary assault on Iraq, who is it that took the US into the real wars: WW2, Korea, Viet Nam?

The current Republican party does not represent real Republicans any more than the current Democratic party represents real Democrats.

I doubt the profit motive for civilian gun ownership: Manufacturing and selling guns to governments for defense of country (or enforcement of unpopular policy) by the military is disconnected from allowing civilians to own guns. Take China as an example - large military; no civilian guns allowed.

[derby378]

30. I'm doing my part...

In addition to running the Amendment II Democrats website (also available on MySpace and YouTube), I am organized a Gun Owners Caucus within the Texas Democratic Party. We had our first meeting back during the state convention in June, and next month we'll try holding another meeting to elect officers, ratify bylaws, consider endorsements, etc.

[Road Scholar]

32. Good for you! I wish there were more just like you. Maybe we'll try

something like that here in NC

[spin]

33. I fear the Democratic NRA might resemble

http://www.gunguys.com/

Their idea of sensible gun laws would back up Washington D.C.'s plan to only allow honest citizens to own revolvers, as semi-auto weapons are "full auto".

For a DU discussion of GunGuys visit"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=185570&mesg_id=185570