Who put the AWB poison in the 2008 Democratic Party Platform?

[jody]

1992 Democratic Party Platform says “assault weapons controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of the most deadly assault weapons.”

1996 Democratic Party Platform says “Today's Democratic Party stands with America's police officers. We are proud to tell them that as long as Bill Clinton and Al Gore are in the White House, any attempt to repeal the Brady Bill or assault weapons ban will be met with a veto.”

2000 Democratic Party Platform says “They stood up to the gun lobby, to pass the Brady Bill and ban deadly assault weapons - and stopped nearly half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns.”

DLC study Winning the Gun Vote, October 2003; 70% of gun-owners say “I agree with President Bush that we need to renew the ban on assault weapons.”

2004 Democratic Party Platform says “reauthorizing the assault weapons ban”.

2008 Democratic Party Platform says “reinstating the assault weapons ban”.

As I’ve stated before, IMO the DLC study question on “ban on assault weapons” could not possibly produce credible data since the term “assault weapon” must have been meaningless to most of the 802 people interviewed.

I would not be surprised if some/many/most of the 802 people interviewed believed “assault weapons” were something like the AK-47 or something out of a movie or TV show.

The wording of the deadly AWB phrase in our 2004 and 2008 platform looks like it was based on the DLC study statement about 70% of gun-owners supporting the AWB.

If so, IMO those DLC members who commissioned the study and were responsible for insuring the report was credible could have prevented the poisonous AWB statement from being in the 2004 and 2008 platforms.

Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (BRADY)
Gun Owners of America (GOA)

STATE	SENATOR	        DLC	BRADY	GOA
CA	Feinstein	Yes	100	F-
CA	Boxer	        ?	100	F-
MA	Kerry	        Yes	100	F-
MA	Kennedy	        ?	100	F-
NY	Schumer	        ?	100	F-
NY	Clinton	        Yes	100	F-
NJ	Lautenberg	?	100	F-
NJ	Menendez	?	93	F-
CT	Dodd	        ?	90	F
CT	Lieberman	Yes	90	F

NOTE: DLC members from http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

[spin]

1. Most of the politicians you list...

come from liberal big cities which are the base of the Democratic Party. These cities are plagued by gun violence and most of their citizens have experienced or known people who have suffered from the misuse of firearms. Since firearm ownership is extremely restricted, they personally know few honest responsible citizens who own guns. Those that do are hunters or sportsmen who take their weapons to remote areas and endanger no other city dwellers. You don't hunt deer in New York City.

It would be political suicide for any Democratic politician from these areas to suddenly change his views on gun ownership and advocate "shall issue" concealed carry permits or allow people to have guns in their house for self defense. The local media would pounce and his chances of reelection would be virtually nonexistent.

If a Republican in the Bible belt would suddenly decide that the right to abortion was fine, the result would be the same.

I'm sure that many Democratic politicians understand that semi-auto weapons that merely look like military weapons are not true "assault weapons". But their voters are not aware or interested in the difference, the explanation is complicated and irrelevant to the people that vote for them. After all, all weapons are bad and only nut cases, racists, people with small penises and criminals would want to own one.

But while a politician can get elected or reelected in the liberal areas of the country by among other things advocating draconian gun laws, he has a difficult time running for the Presidency. True, the gun issue is far from the most important item in the country but in close elections it can make the difference and might have made lost the recent Presidential elections.

So a Democratic politician running for the Presidency faces a dilemma. He can never gain a high rating from the NRA or the support of guns owners because of his past record, and he can't alienate his base in the big liberal cities. Obama is trying:

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

[jody]

2. Understand but IMO it's foolhardy to write an anti-RKBA platform that could anger 80 million

gun-owners.

IMO Obama and Biden are scrupulously sticking to the Democratic Party Platform in their speeches.

What might get a candidate elected in NY, MA, NJ, CT, and CA, 120 electoral votes, may not attract voters in the other 45 states.

I use those five states because IMO their senators are outspoken critics of RKBA.

[spin]

3. Unfortunately, gun control is a ball and chain...

attached to the ankle of a Democratic Presidential candidate from a liberal area of the country.

He can't rise to become a candidate for President without supporting extreme gun control and he can't modify his position without alienating his liberal base. And no matter how hard he tries to appeal to sportsmen and hunters, most gun owners will see his efforts as pandering for their vote.

In this election, the economic issues might overshadow the wedge issues.

We live in interesting times.

[jody]

4. Good point, a Dem can't become a candidate without the NE and can't win without the other states. nt

[TPaine7]

6. Your analysis is spot on

Which is why honesty is the best policy:

I have a strong personal aversion to guns and I hate the the violence perpetrated with them. If it were up to me, I would ban handguns and most long guns--and subject the remainder to severe regulations. I would not allow ordinary citizens to bear arms; only retired police officers could carry loaded weapons outside the home.

But it isn't up to me. I am not America's dictator. The Constitution, which I must swear to uphold as President, says that citizens can keep and bear arms. I will not, I cannot, defy the Constitution in order to impose my own ideas on the American people. That is not how the system works, it is not even how the system should work.

So while I will work tirelessly to keep guns out of the hands of children and violent felons, I will not seek to overthrow the Heller decision through appointments, nor will I attempt to gradually minimize the people's rights.

I know this will come as a great disappointment to many of my supporters, but if I defy one part of the Constitution to suit my preferences I am no better, in principle, than those who defy other parts to suit theirs.

That would be honest. And believable. And principled. And awesome.

It would be poorly received by many, but what alternative would they have? Would they vote for McCain over this? From their perspective, he's worse!

The net result is that it would it would bring many off the fence and into the Democratic fold while preventing a protracted war with the Supreme Court that Obama will almost certainly lose. Win-Win.

[iverglas]

7. how is it

that someone with so much contempt for all things non-USAmerican feels such a need to talk like a toffy Brit?

"Spot on." Cheeses.


That would be honest. And believable. And principled. And awesome.

Whereas Obama is actually ... the opposite of all that, I guess.

[jody]

9. TPaine7 you really lived up to your nom de plume with that post !!!!

:thumbsup: :toast: :pals: :yourock: :hi:

[SteveM]

28. If nothing else, these Democrats should keep it "local"...

The various prohibitionist measures would rise and fall depending on court challenges. But what bothers me is the INSISTENCE on keeping what amounts to a "local problem" as an agenda item for national legislation, thus guaranteeing a national response.

Frankly, our task is to start a strong campaign WITHIN the Democratic Party to drop this national approach.

Nationalize banks, not gun legislation.

[iverglas]

5. and as I've asked before: ...

As I’ve stated before, IMO the DLC study question on “ban on assault weapons” could not possibly produce credible data since the term “assault weapon” must have been meaningless to most of the 802 people interviewed.

... who the fuck cares???

Pick a horse and sit on it, will you?

If the issue is VOTES, then it wouldn't matter if the survey respondents thought "assualt weapon" meant "strawberry ice cream cone with sprinkles on top".

They responded that they SUPPORT the measure.

Whether they "understood" it to your liking matters ONLY if you want to CHANGE THEIR MINDS.

Why do you want to change the minds of people who support the Democratic Party's electoral platform, jody?

[russ1943]

8. A lot of gunowners support the AWB

“One of the more interesting results was that 60 percent of Republicans and those who voted for George Bush supported the idea of an assault weapons ban,” says Peddle. “That debunks the conventional wisdom which often paints people in those groups as almost universally against gun control.” http://www.niu.edu/PubAffairs/RELEASES/2005/march/gunban.shtml
67% of likely voters in Missouri favor renewing the federal assault weapons ban, with 53% strongly favoring its renewal. Only 27% oppose renewal; 6% don’t know or refused to answer. http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Missouri%20poll%20fact%20sheet.pdf

71% of likely voters in Ohio favor renewing the federal assault weapons ban, with 54% strongly favoring its renewal. Only slightly more than one in five (22%) oppose renewal; 7% don’t know or refused to answer. http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Ohio%20poll%20fact%20sheet.pdf

Polls show the majority of Americans support the ban and several police chiefs have expressed concern over its repeal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644044.stm

A statewide poll released on Sunday found that 73 percent of New Jersey residents polled said they supported the ban. Only 21 percent said they opposed the law. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE2DF1038F93AA35754C0A967958260

And today, 77 percent of the American people and 66 percent of gun owners believe this legislation should be reauthorized. http://feinstein.senate.gov/04Speeches/assault%20weapons%20ban%203%201.htm

Efforts to renew the ban, which polls show is supported by at least two-thirds of Americans, have faltered this year on Capitol Hill. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/politics/09ban.html

Polls consistently indicate strong majorities in favor of the ban, and the ban is backed by law-enforcement groups such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the National Fraternal Order of Police. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/06/24/state_moves_on_assault_weapons_ban/
A University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey in April found that 71% of respondents, including 64% of those in households with guns, support a renewal of the ban. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2004-09-07-assaultweapons-ourview_x.htm

The study, "Unconventional Wisdom," by the Consumer Federation of America and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, found that a substantial majority of likely voters in 10 states support renewing and strengthening the federal assault weapons ban, as do most gun owners and National Rifle Association supporters. The survey found that:
• Voters in Midwestern states supported renewing the assault weapons ban slightly more than those in Southwestern states. Midwestern states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri) averaged 72 percent support for renewal. Southwestern states (Arizona and New Mexico) averaged 67 percent. In Florida, 81 percent of likely voters support renewing the ban.
• Rural states, traditionally seen as very conservative on gun issues, strongly favored renewing the ban. Sixty-eight percent of voters in South Dakota and West Virginia support renewal.
• Majorities of gun owners in all but two states favored renewing the ban. Even in those two states, Missouri and Ohio, only slightly less than 50 percent of gun owners and NRA supporters favored renewing the ban.
• In nine of 10 states surveyed, union households supported renewing the ban by at least 60 percent. In Pennsylvania, 80 percent of union households supported renewing the ban and 73 percent supported strengthening it.
• At least 60 percent of current and former military members and military families supported renewing the ban in all states surveyed. In Wisconsin, more than three-fourths (77 percent) of current and former military members and military families support renewing the ban. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60579-2004Jul18.html

[slackmaster]

11. Just once, I'd like to see an AWB survey that measures how well participants understand the issue

:argh:

[jody]

23. If the sample was from DU's anti-gun group, IMO it would reveal gross ignorance. n/t

[iverglas]

12. yeah, eh?

Just like last time that stuff got posted ...

But those people are just stupid, doncha know???

[krispos42]

13. Eh, yeah.

"Assault weapon" is a perjorative term. If the question asked has been reworked with "certain semi-automatic rifles" the answer would have been different.

The difficulty with THAT is that the term "assault weapon" generally also covers shotguns and pistols with certain features.


"Do you support the repeal of the death tax?" would very likely get you vastly different responses than "Do you support the repeal of the estate tax?"


Another factor to consider is that many of the people that answered "yes" are people that would vote for ANY restriction on guns presented before them.


Ultimately the American voter IS stupid. Most of us can't find Iraq on a map but we know that Saddam and Bin Laden were co-planners of the 9/11 attacks. And that Jesus routinely appears on toast and flour tortillas.

Here's an interview on Ring of Fire about "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing The Truth About The American Voter" by Rick Shenkman.

http://www.goleft.tv/interface/flash/player.swf?id=1805


We're ignorant and proud. :-(

[iverglas]

18. alrighty then

So what's all this hoohah about, anyhow?

I'm still trying to figure it out.

What is the point of complaining about how people allegedly don't know what "assault weapons" are, when some large majority of people say they support a ban on them, in the context of arguing that the Democratic Party loses votes by supporting such a ban??

I keep asking and not getting an answer.

It sounds like somebody wants to

(a) persuade a bunch of people that an assault weapon ban is bad,
i.e. (b) persuade them that the Democratic Party platform is bad,
and then (c) persuade the Democratic Party to change its platform.

To what end?

To ensure a Democratic win, or ... something else?

[krispos42]

22. So if the majority of people, no matter how ignorant or brainwashed wants something...

...it should happen regardless?

That's how we got the Patriot Act, Reaganomics, globalization, warrantless wiretapping, Dubya, and institutionalized torture and how we DIDN'T get national health care or gay marriage.

Besides, how many people are going to LEAVE the Democratic Party because they drop AWB language?

It sounds like somebody wants to

(a) persuade a bunch of people that an assault weapon ban is bad,
i.e. (b) persuade them that the Democratic Party platform is bad,
and then (c) persuade the Democratic Party to change its platform.

To what end?

To ensure a Democratic win, or ... something else?

To make laws based on reality and facts, not on manufactured concern or hysteria, nor on some sociological ideal.

To defuse an issue that paints Democrats as elitist so that we can get in office and pursue our traditional progressive agenda.

So that the rights of Americans are not infringed based on manufactured concern or hysteria or on some sociological ideal.

[iverglas]

24. Hmm. Did I say that?

Nope. Didn't think so.


Besides, how many people are going to LEAVE the Democratic Party because they drop AWB language

Well, I just don't know.

Why doesn't the Democratic Party just go for it? Gamble that changing part of its platform 6 weeks before an election isn't going to piss off just enough people that they'll stay home on E-day?

You folks got any surveys that actually give some numbers about how many people who are now planning to vote Republican would switch and vote Democrat if that change were made?

Didn't think so.

There seem to be quite a lot of you. Why not commission a poll?

Surely the NRA would be eager to help out.

[krispos42]

25. That's my interpretation

But I know that you LOATHE anybody actually attempting to infer meaning from your sentences and paragraphs, so I used a question mark at the end of my sentence. Just in case.

Why doesn't the Democratic Party just go for it? Gamble that changing part of its platform 6 weeks before an election isn't going to piss off just enough people that they'll stay home on E-day?

That's not going to happen when they adopted the platform 4 weeks ago. The point is that is shouldn't be in the platform in the first place.

The inertia of the party platform is exactly why the AWB should never become permenant law in the first place: once it becomes enshrined in stone it's virtually impossible to remove no matter how stupid, useless, or unpopular it is.

You folks got any surveys that actually give some numbers about how many people who are now planning to vote Republican would switch and vote Democrat if that change were made?

Didn't think so.

There seem to be quite a lot of you. Why not commission a poll?

Surely the NRA would be eager to help out.

Not a bad idea at all, although I doubt the Republican-dominated NRA would be very enthusiastic about a poll that might make Democrats more powerful. The NRA is a single-issue organization; the people that are part of it are not.

However I can't do such a poll on DU because we're all voting for Obama in 5 weeks. And people that say otherwise... well, they take a fission trip ;-)

[derby378]

27. And iverglas wins a cigar...

(a) and (c) are true. (b) is only true in regards to the gun ban.

We want a Democratic victory in 2008. The gun ban endangers chances of such a victory, and violates our Second Amendment rights. If the ban is reinstated, Republicans will seize control of Congress once again. That means our economy will further slide towards depression, our troops will be stuck in another unethical occupation, and our government's infrastructure will rot from the inside due to corruption.

All because some stickybeak moms had a problem with civilians owning rifle magazines that hold more than 10 shots each.

These are the terms of the debate, and they are undisputed.

[iverglas]

29. oooooh, "stickybeak moms"

Can't say as I know what "stickybeak" is, but I'll guess that it means having a tendency to poke the nose into others' business.

"Moms", that one I get.

Individuals whose identity consists of their sex + their reproductive status, who are thus essentially worthless, or at least no more valuable than livestock. A real adult human being would have an identity defined by a socioeconomic role/status, not biology. A real adult human being is a man. And men, of course, never poke their noses into others' business. (Why, that's why an overwhelming majority of legislators, whose role is precisely to poke their noses into ohters' business, are women ...)

Love to see them true colours a-flyin'.

Real men don't need no women tellin' 'em what to do. And it's a bleedin' shame those women ever got the damned vote.


(a) and (c) are true. (b) is only true in regards to the gun ban.

Sorry. It went like this:

It sounds like somebody wants to

(a) persuade a bunch of people that an assault weapon ban is bad,
i.e. (b) persuade them that the Democratic Party platform is bad,
and then (c) persuade the Democratic Party to change its platform.

and it wasn't actually a multiple-choice question. It was a description of the process quite evidently being advocated in this forum. (a)=(b), not (a)or(c).

[iverglas]

20. I thought you had ...

But maybe you haven't ...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=talking+to+americans&search_type=&aq=0&oq=talking+to+a

The Australians seem to have ripped off the concept, but of course it's Rick Mercer you want to see.

He does Bush. And Huckabee.


I should add: I find Mercer often unCanadianly nasty.

[gorfle]

15. I betcha.

I betcha if you told all those poll people that all rifles, let alone assault rifles, account for less homicides each year than hands and feet, they would become completely ambivalent about banning them.

[gorfle]

16. What is an "assault weapon"

The fact of the matter is most Americans when they here the word "assualt rifle" immediately think "machine gun". This skews polls.

Just look at one of the articles you cited:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644044.stm

They show pictures of an UZI and an AK47 and claim they are what the AWB is all about. They are not.

The article also says:

""So, tomorrow for the first time in 10 years when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: 'Sure'", he said."

The picture they are trying to paint here is that a killer or terrorist can walk into a gun shop and buy a machine gun. This is completely untrue. You can by a semi-automatic version of an AK-47, but this is no more or less dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle. You can walk into the same gun store and buy a Ruger Mini-14 that shoots the same bullet the exact same way. But that wouldn't make for nearly as scary a news article, would it?

[ManiacJoe]

17. Exactly right.

This is why the term "assault weapon" is used. It sounds like "assault rifle", which is classified as a machine gun. However, assault rifles are not covered by any of the common definitions of "assault weapon". It is all about deception and playing on the ignorance of the masses.

Many years ago, someone actually published a study that measured the gun knowledge of people who had just taken a poll on gun policies. Unfortunately that study showed what most of us already know, that the masses are very ignorant of all things gun related especially the laws and the technology. I would love to see a current study done, not that the results would change.

[derby378]

26. Many of the polls you cited are four years old

Back then, pro-RKBA Democrats such as Webb, Casey, and Tester hadn't been elected to the Senate yet. Back then, there were no pro-RKBA caucuses in the Oregon or Texas Democratic parties.

The 2008 platform may not reflect it, but pro-RKBA Democrats are finally flexing their muscles nationwide.

[iverglas]

30. yeah, eh?

Polls are four years old.

That is, they date from back when the Democrats supposedly lost an election because of their firearms control policies ...

And your point was?

[enfield collector]

31. President Clinton would disagre with you on this, he's on record as

stating the AWB cost us the house majority in 94. gun control is a loser and the sooner we dump it the better

[iverglas]

32. put up or shut up

Money, mouth. Etc.

Produce and quote the source for your assertion that Clinton said what you attribute to him.

When you are unable to do that, retract your assertion and apologize for (intentionally or inadvertently, it doesn't matter) posting false information that has the potential to mislead someone reading it.

You have a responsibility, when engaging in public discussion of a public policy issue, not to misrepresent facts. You clearly either did not ascertain that something you read somewhere was actually true before repeating it, or chose to repeat something you knew was not true. It doesn't matter. You need to substantiate it or retract it. At your earliest convenience.



(typo fixed)

[gorfle]

14. It's simple.

Why do you want to change the minds of people who support the Democratic Party's electoral platform, jody?

Because on the issue of firearms, the Democratic Platform is immoral, unjust, unconstitutional, and un-American.

The people who support it need their minds changed.

[iverglas]

19. it sure is

During a presidential election campaign, persuade voters that the Democratic Party platform is a bad one.

Yup, about as simple as I thought it was.

[gorfle]

21. Or...

During a presidential election campaign, persuade voters that the Democratic Party platform is a bad one.

Or...convince the people drawing up the platform that it is a bad platform and they are costing themselves votes and possibly the election unless they change their minds on what needs to go into it and what doesn't.

[pipoman]

10. For some time

I have strongly believed that the 94 AWB was almost singlehandedly responsible for the electoral losses in subsequent years. I have, over the last few months, changed my mind somewhat. I do believe it was a factor in rural and blue collar states for sure, but I believe that Democratic wholehearted support for NAFTA, GATT, China MFTS, and other trade agreements which had harsh economic impact on these same rural and blue collar voters shared in the blame. I also believe that Bill Clinton's assertion in his book that the AWB cost elections was somewhat dishonest and he also knew that support of these trade agreements had a dramatic impact on the party.

At this point, being too late to back up on the trade issues, many of the traditional rural and blue collar voters feel abandoned by the party, in fact feel alienated by the traditional 'labor party', and have concluded there is really no difference between the parties on issues important to them, except the gun issue, leaving them voting on this issue alone.

I do still believe that the party would do well to adopt the position of leaving the gun issue to the cities and states, concentrate on enforcement of existing laws, enhancing the accuracy of NICS, and getting on with the larger issues of the economy, healthcare, security, and possibly loosening federal drug laws and returning enforcement to states in support of spending on drug treatment rolled into the health care plan.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. Recommend