Can Biden avoid AWB/gun-grabber image and why did Biden include the AWB in Title 18, Ch 44 and

[jody]

not in Title 26, Ch 53?

S. 2237 with its “Subtitle B--Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007” and H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 all modify laws in Title 18.

Given the hysteria about “assault weapons”, why did Biden who claims to have written the first Assault Weapons Ban change the law in Title 18 “CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS”?

IMO given the hype and hysteria about assault weapons, Biden’s law could have been in Title 26, “CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS”

Related question: Biden’s bill S.2237 does not have the explosive section included in H.R. 1022 that gives the Attorney General the authority to ban popular semiautomatic firearms like the Remington model 1100 shotgun, see quote below.

Does that provide Biden a way to distance himself and his bill S.2237 from devastating accusations of being a gun-grabber that is associated with H.R. 1022?

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

[iverglas]

1. can jody single-handedly

get the Democratic Party ticket defeated, or will he be needing help?


Supplementary questions:

Does Joe Biden give a shit what jody or any of his fellow travellers think?
Do any genuine Democratic voters give a shit what jody or any of his fellow travellers think?

[east texas lib]

2. But they care even less...

About what anonymous northern Eurobabblers think. Or say. If you care so much about U.S. gun policy,
then by all means emigrate to the U.S. and vote your conscience. But anything less is just the same
old bullshit armchair quarterbacking you've been doing for years.

[iverglas]

3. uh huh

anonymous northern Eurobabblers

Misplaced that atlas, did you?

Or maybe your grade four graduation diploma ...


But anything less is just the same old bullshit armchair quarterbacking you've been doing for years.

Snork. Imagine somebody posting in a thread by jody about the "same old bullshit" anything. Ha!

Let me know when armchair quarterbacks get their living rooms trashed by the team coach.

[apocalypsehow]

4. Looks to me like you got your sig line exactly backwards.

Ass-backwards, even.

"If you care so much about U.S. gun policy,
then by all means emigrate to the U.S. and vote your conscience"

Yeah. I uncorked my septic system and just let the liquid shit ooze all over my neighbor's lawn. He objected. I told him:

"If you care so much about my septic tank policy, then by all means buy this property out from under me and shit according to your conscience."

:eyes:

[east texas lib]

47. Hmmm...

Your neighbor just needs to have a small dike in place so your shit remains with it's rightful
owner. However, you should probably re-cork your septic system to prevent further loss of your
cognitive skills due to breathing your own excessive sewer gas emissions. Methane kills.;)

[jody]

7. You do have a flair for cutting right to the hear of a discussion. Have a pleasant evening.

:hi:

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. The non-Democratic arbiter of all things Democratic

weighs in...

If jody, et al, can get the Democratic Party ticket defeated, the party might
haved been better served by listening to them and not the Brady/VPC/DLC claque
regarding guns.

That would also have the other effect of proving him correct.

I rather think he is engaging in some much needed Realpolitik.

Of course, you are welcome to cling to the idea that getting none of what you want
is better than getting 90% of what you want.

As for the supplementary questions:

Perhaps Biden does. After all, no one who is a committee head in the Senate can
be too prissy to engage in political give-and-take. I'm sure JB would like to
win the election.

I realize that it is an article of religious faith with you that "no REAL Democrats 'do' guns".
You might find yourself sittting in a corner commiserating with the Intelligent Design
and Ron Paul crowds when the election is over

[iverglas]

6. ah, those realizations

I realize that it is an article of religious faith with you that "no REAL Democrats 'do' guns".

Some would call them delusions, if that's an example of 'em.


Why can none of you people just speak honestly and straightforwardly about ANYTHING or anyone, ever?

[jody]

8. Damm, I hate to go through another loss like Gore and Kerry. Is anybody out there?

Why must Dem leaders ignore history and the simple fact that there are 54 million gun-owners in an electorate of 200 million.

122 million voted in the most recent election for president that our Dem candidate lost.

Our candidate needs about 61 million votes to win so why would any sane candidate with brilliant political advisers do anything that would piss off 54 million potential voters?

Like the fictional anchor Howard Beale on "UBS Evening News" I want all Democrats to open their windows and join me in shouting "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore.”

Credit to Network, a 1976 New Hollywood drama film for that last rant.

[Boomer 50]

9. I've been asking myself many of these questions Jody......

Obama lost me as a supporter and confirmed his anti-gun intentions when he picked Biden. I guess my vote means nothing to him. Because of their anti-gun stance, I have to deal with the possible reality that we get another 4 years of Bush politics. All because my party's choice for President offends me and most other gun owners on the gun issue.

Our party could have had this election in the bag. We've given it to McCain and that pisses me off. I'd really like the leadership of the DNC to be held accountable for their regression into gun control. They've put our entire nation at risk by handing control to another Bush clone. We're supposed to be progressive thinkers and we are on everything BUT FIREARMS! Why the DNC has adopted a stance that reeks of racism and hatred on this subject confuses me and concerns me. I'd really like some answers. I've written and called and I've gotten no responses at all.

We got our asses kicked in 1994 and we should have learned a valuable lesson. At this point, I have to think that we may have a traitor to the party in our leadership who is propagating the anti-gun stance to enrage gun owners to support McCain. Again, I'd really like some answers from DNC.

[iverglas]

10. remind me

For which candidate for President are you voting?

[Boomer 50]

11. None.

I'm leaving that part blank. I won't vote for McCain or any third party loser. I cannot and will not support Biden. So, I'm withholding my vote in that race.

[iiibbb]

12. I emplore you to reconsider... guns can't be the only issue

The threat to our economy... the threat of an increasingly over-extended military for futile conflicts...


Do you really think we can suffer 4 more years of this? Between the erosion of our other civil liberties, and the potential for an extended depression... what good are gun rights if you lose your job and can't afford guns or property?

I deeply believe that if McCain/Palin don't sink us... they're going to cripple our economy and our freedom.


Put your trust in Heller... they're not going to be able to undo that in just 4 years, and we'll certainly have a read on their intentions. You ought to give Obama a chance. He's going to be pretty busy with plenty of other issues.

[apocalypsehow]

23. "Put your trust in Heller..."

And the congregation responded "Ahhhmen..."

All rise! And now, let us pray:

"Our implement that art on the nightstand,
Hallowed be your polished gleam.
Thy trigger smoothly plunged, my undershorts-creaming done;
at the civilian range and in my fantasies strange,
about taking out a band of criminal punks trying to rob 7-11.
Give us this forum, our daily palaver;
And spare us all that pinko, gun control blather.
But lead us not into cut and paste mask-slipping temptation,
from highroad Democrat-hatin';
for thine is the only tool we posses with the power,
as we're reminded when we're in the shower,
and we wouldn't want to get TS'd singing your praises,
to all those liberals cowards. Amen."

And the congregation said "Ahhhhmennnn..."

Edit: spelling.

[iverglas]

24. you wanna do the honours?

Post 22 below.

Feel free to copy & paste into a reply to Jody, sans my commentary if you prefer. ;)

[apocalypsehow]

27. My sacerdotal duties have been keeping me so. durn. busy.

But I'll see what I can do. ;-)

[SteveM]

34. There you go again, talking about sexual emissions. Please. Elsewhere (nt)

[iverglas]

13. and so

your purpose for being here at Democratic Underground saying

I cannot and will not support Biden. So, I'm withholding my vote in that race.

would be ...?

[jody]

16. I agree with iiibbb in #12 because you post on DU and are obviously well read re RKBA. IMO you most

definitely are admired by your friends who are gun-owners.

While you might not vote for Obama/Biden, other voters who look to you for leadership might react to a statement you make and actually vote for McCain/Palin.

IMO your decision isn't just one vote, it could easily affect many other voters.

Of course I could be wrong because I've never met you, but I doubt it.

:hi:

[iverglas]

17. oh my

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm

[tucsonlib]

14. I'd Be Willing To Wager....

...that of the "54 million gun-owners in an electorate of 200 million" the overwhelming majority agree with me; not with you or Boomerboy. That is to say, we place the gun issue where it belongs on the list of "Critical Issues Affecting How We Should Vote". Certainly doesn't qualify for the top 10. Or even the top 20. Go ahead - rant away. You may be the loudest; doesn't mean you're the voice of the majority.

[jody]

18. So RKBA is not in your top 20 issues or most voters. If you are correct, then Bill Clinton is surely

wrong when he says RKBA cost Gore and Kerry their elections.

Gore and Kerry have made similar statements to that of Clinton but not so clearly.

Those who study elections closely believe that swing states like MI, PA, OH, FL will determine who wins on 4 November.

Analysts say RKBA is among the top issues and IMO "bitter people that clings to their guns and religion" in those states will determine who wins.

Sadly I believe it's too late for anyone to change voters' opinions of Obama and Biden on whether they believe their statements about supporting the Second Amendment.

Of course its impossible for the Democratic Party to which I belong too change its platform that promises to reinstate the AWB which in H.R. 1022 is a bait-and-switch scheme to ban semiautomatic firearms.

[iverglas]

21. poor Bill Clinton

If you are correct, then Bill Clinton is surely wrong when he says RKBA cost Gore and Kerry their elections.

I mean, first, I don't think that Bill Clinton ever spoke in such idiotbabble as "RKBA".

But second, and most importantly, he never said any such fucking thing.

Maybe someone will challenge jody to produce his evidence. If you ask really really nicely and pretend you believe him and just want the reference for future use, maybe he won't put you on ignore.

[iverglas]

22. Okay, I'll do the Gore part

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association
(my emphases)

1994

In the 1994 election the NRA is often credited with defeating Congressmen Jack Brooks and Tom Foley (the first Speaker of the House to lose reelection since 1860). Bill Clinton wrote:

“The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.”

—Bill Clinton, My Life pp 629-30

That was fast and easy.

Bill Clinton DID NOT SAY RKBA cost Gore and Kerry their elections as regards Gore.

Who'll take over as regards Kerry?

Who'll tell jody it's time he put up or shut up?

[bossy22]

15. they should

they should care about what every voter things

and there we go again- iverglas the sole determinant of what constitutes a "democrat"

So lets examine- what constitutes being a democrat. First off the democratic party is a large organization consisting of millions of millions of voters- and like any large organization (or nation for that fact) there are different sub-sects within the general group. Sub-sects may differ on policy with other sub-sects, but that doesnt mean one side is "more" of a democrat than the other. The blue dog democrats are one of these sub-sects- a very large one for that fact. You can disagree with some of their positions but calling that does not make them any less of a democrat than Ted Kennedy. You mention the genuine democratic voter- what is the genuine democratic voter?- how do you define one. there isnt a one size fits all definition when it comes to that regarding feelings on issues. Democrats from different areas will feel differently on different issues. Its YOUR types that try to push this one size fits all meme, which is the reason why we failed for 12 years in congress. Not everyone wants a new england democrat representing them. People from colarado may want a colarado democrat- one who may have a more "conservitive" view on some issues.

stop trying to lump US (i mean it as us, not U.S. ) democrats (which btw- YOU ARE NOT) into one stereotypical group- telling us if we do not believe a certain way we are not democrats

the democrats are a vast party, encompassing many differeing oppinions and view points...and the reason we win is because we realize that

[iiibbb]

19. What Iverglas doesn't understand is that it's not what makes a Democrat that matters...

...it's about how to sell the brand... and there is a slew of people caught between the Republican and Democratic platforms. RKBA is in my humble opinion one of the biggest levers out there the Democrats could use to move a large body of voters.

[iverglas]

25. I understand everything

What Iverglas doesn't understand is that it's not what makes a Democrat that matters...
...it's about how to sell the brand...

And what is so very, very easy to understand is that one does not sell the brand BY ATTACKING IT DURING A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

That should be equally easy for you to understand, I think.

[iiibbb]

26. Who's attacking?

You sound like McCain/Palin...


And if gun rights are meaningless... does criticizing the Democratic platform on that basis really constitute an attack? You're the one that argues it doesn't matter, and modifying the platform won't draw people in anyway.

[apocalypsehow]

28. "You sound like McCain/Plain..."

And you sound like you're not sure about what constitutes dumb when you see it, but hit "post message" anyway just in case.

"You're the one that argues it doesn't matter, and modifying the platform won't draw people in anyway"

No one has been arguing any such thing. Pauses when the eyes are weary sometimes helps. Sometimes.

"And if gun rights are meaningless... does criticizing the Democratic platform on that basis really constitute an attack?"

Gun "rights" are a figment of your vaporous imagination since it is people who have "rights," not inanimate objects. What is truly "meaningless," however, is the feeble notion you might or might not currently entertain that you're really on the cutting edge of the art of fooling anybody.

You're really not, and by quite a stretch.

[iverglas]

44. ya gotta love 'em

What would we do for amusement?

You're the one that argues it doesn't matter, and modifying the platform won't draw people in anyway
No one has been arguing any such thing.

Well ... actually ... I do rather often say that I just plain don't believe that there are droves of regular folks out there just dying to have access to health care and lower taxes and an end to the occupation of Iraq and all that stuff, and just holding their breath for the Democratic Party to pledge to eliminate all the nasty gun control stuff from its platform, and then they'll leap up and vote a straight Democratic ticket.


May I just add, re:

And if gun rights are meaningless... does criticizing the Democratic platform on that basis really constitute an attack?

... well, no, really, I can't think of anything even equally dumb to say.

[iverglas]

20. and there you go again

and there we go again- iverglas the sole determinant of what constitutes a "democrat"

You wanna back that assertion up with something, pal?

If you want to say that I'm "the sole determinant of what constitutes a 'democrat'," you need to have some basis for saying it.

I can't help you out, because of course I HAVE NEVER SAID that I am the sole determinant of what constitutes a "democrat". It's your claim. Own it, substantiate it or retract it, your choice.


People from colarado may want a colarado democrat- one who may have a more "conservitive" view on some issues.

Bully for them. So then their gun-suckin', fetus-huggin', women-hatin' representatives will be called "Democrats". I don't think I've said they wouldn't.

What they wouldn't be is anything that could be called "left" or "libertarian" or even that weird "liberal" thing you have in the USofA.


And what any of this has to do with people kicking up the kind of stink in the middle of a presidential election that is likely to deter other people from voting Democrat AND CALLING THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS while kicking up said stink, I don't know.

[apocalypsehow]

29. That's a pile of blubber. And semi-literate blubber, at that. n/t.

[Irreverend IX]

36. I understand you hold Biden in high regard.

How do you feel about his fervent support of the drug war?

[iverglas]

42. hey, stopped beating your dog yet?

How do you feel about his fervent support of the drug war?

Bring on them loaded questions! I just love 'em ...

[iverglas]

43. and do check out all the "liberals" in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3050164

Joe Biden doesn't look like the problem ...

[one-eyed fat man]

30. NFA 1934 is not a 'gun law'

the National Firearms Act is a TAX law, that is why it is in TITLE 26—INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

The 73rd United States Congress discussed extensively the 2nd Amendment ramifications and opted for the strategy of not banning anything; they simply levied a tax and registration requirement. The 1986 'ban' doesn't really ban anything, it just prohibits the Treasury Department from accepting your tax payment. Possessing a firearm subject to the NFA that has not had the tax paid is unlawful.

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … not to be denied” (p. 431). Chief Justice JOHN MARSHALL, McCulloch v. Maryland 1819

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE lists in Part 1 the things that Congress has decided are Federal Crimes. Chapter 44 is the Firearms chapter.

[jody]

31. I understand but given the AWB grandfathered in many items, AW which no rational person can argue is

more deadly than a "machine gun", could be classed as "CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS" and restricted as others are in Title 26, Chapter 53.

We would still have the issue of defining an AW that is to be tightly restricted if used by law-abiding citizens and no worry about criminals who aren't going to obey laws anyway.

My thought was prompted by trying to find an escape path for Biden from his sponsorship of a bill reinstating the useless AWB.

[one-eyed fat man]

32. don't think he does

If he wanted an escape path all he'd have to do is withdraw the Bill. He's been beating that drum for 20 years, he knows how to quit if he wants. If there is no action on the bill before this Congressional session ends then depending outcome of the election, he'll either get to reintroduce it in January or be ready to cast a tie-breaker if someone else sponsors another version next go around.

[jody]

33. IMO it’s not easy to withdraw S.2237 because it addresses many different issues, see below.

TITLE I--SUPPORTING THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE
Subtitle A--COPS Improvement Act
Subtitle B--FBI Act of 2007
Subtitle C--Project to Protect America Act of 2007
Subtitle D--Drug Enforcement Special Agents Restoration Act of 2007
Subtitle E--National Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice Act of 2007

TITLE II--PREVENTING VIOLENT CRIME AND BREAKING THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE
Subtitle A--Taking Care of Children
Subtitle B--Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007
Subtitle C--School Safety and Student Protection Act of 2007
Subtitle D--Civic Justice Corps Demonstration Act of 2007
Subtitle E--National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act
Subtitle F--Juvenile Delinquency Court Improvement
Subtitle G--Improving Assistance to Domestic and Sexual Violence Victims Act of 2007

TITLE III--PROTECTING COMMUNITIES BY REDUCING RECIDIVISM
Subtitle A--Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2007
Subtitle B--Commission To Study Alternatives to Incarceration of Non-Violent Mentally Ill Offenders Act of 2007

TITLE IV--PROTECTING CHILDREN
Subtitle A--Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2007
Subtitle B--Violence Against Children Act of 2007

TITLE V--DRUG CONTROL, PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
Subtitle A--Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007
Subtitle B--Dextromethorphan Abuse Reduction Act of 2007
Subtitle C--Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007
Subtitle D--Children of Addicted Parents of 2007
Subtitle E--Online Pharmacy Bill
Subtitle F--Local Drug Crisis Enhancement Grants Act
Subtitle G--Extraterritorial Controlled Substance Trafficking Venue Clarification Act of 2007
Subtitle H--Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2007
Subtitle I--PACT Act

TITLE VI--PREVENTING ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF FIREARMS
Subtitle A--Firearms Background Check Enhancement Act of 2007
Subtitle B--Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007

TITLE VII--TECHNOLOGY AND CRIMES
Subtitle A--Forensics Grants Improvement Act of 2007
Subtitle B--Grant Program for Export of FBI DNA Software
Subtitle C--Cyber Security Act of 2007
Subtitle D--Protecting Electronic Voting Act of 2007

TITLE VIII--INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

TITLE IX--CRIME VICTIMS
Subtitle A--Crime Victims With Disabilities Act of 2007
Subtitle B--Restitution for Victims of Crime Act of 2007

TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS
Subtitle A--Continuity of Justice Act of 2007
Subtitle B--Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2007
Subtitle C--Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program Act of 2007

[one-eyed fat man]

35. true

Of course, that is another common Congressional strategy, bury a provision that would never stand on its own merit into a Bill that stands a very good chance of passing. The "poison pill" is the analogue used to kill legislation that would otherwise pass handily by inserting a unpalatable provision.

[jody]

37. I hope Biden finds a way to distance himself and by association Obama from the death-wish statement

in the Democratic Party platform, "reinstating the assault weapons ban".

Since Obama is now recognized as the leader of our Democratic Party, I wish he would provide proof for the party's assertion in our platform "we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne".

BUT, what works in Cheyenne may work in Chicago, D.C. and other large cities that ban guns so law-abiding citizens can be easy pickings for any criminal.

It's an indisputable fact from DoJ reports that LEO in Chicago and D.C. are unable to protect law-abiding citizens.

It's also an indisputable fact that an unarmed, law-abiding citizens are unprepared to protect themselves against criminals.

The party may have been better served if our platform said "we want to know if what works in Cheyenne with its homicide rate of 3.5/100k might work in Chicago with its homicide rate of over 15/100k and D.C. with its homicide rate of over 29/100k."

The difference is Cheyenne does not ban guns but Chicago and D.C. did ban guns.

[CarinKaryn]

38. This is why I get the pukes every time I come here...

It sickens me to see all those who claim to be working on our side deliberately undermining our party and our candidates --- just two months away from the most important election we could hope to have.

I'm sure all the good Dems here will be happy to usher in McCrazy and wolf-shooting, moose killing bezerker to the White House.


:puke:

[ManiacJoe]

39. What better way to assist a candidate

is there than to point out his errors and show him how to correct them? Allowing him to repeatedly make the same mistake(s) helps no one.

[jody]

40. You have every reason to feel uncomfortable. The Democratic Party supports RKBA and before long we

who oppose the platform promise “reinstating the assault weapons ban” will have that removed from our platform.

That’s the will of the majority of we Democrats.

You can ignore the results presented in the study commissioned by Democrats, Winning the Gun Vote if you wish but, those who support RKBA are the majority in our party and we don’t intend to let those who oppose RKBA lose another election as happened with Gore and Biden.

It’s possible that the unthinkable happens and Obama loses.

If that happens, those Dems who oppose RKBA can take credit for losing three elections in a row for president.

If Obama loses, I hope you are happy because I will be royally pissed.

[iverglas]

41. was that the pukes ...

... or the 'Pukes??

;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Kicked

[LN3]

46. +1