Seems that many Democratic pols are bent on professional suicide.

[old mark]

I see that ALL 3 of the Democratic candidates for the PA Governor's primary are endorsing some form of increased gun control on legal gun buyers and owners. We here have a large Democratic majority, but the GOP WILL get out and vote when the issue is guns and the Democratic voters seem so be very split and antagonistic and MANY Democrats own and carry guns. There are 2 republican candidates, one of which may be seen as supporting some form of anti-gun position, so that may be our only saving grace.

The Democrats seem to be too stupid to get out of their own way on this issue.
Be nice if we had candidates who could actually think.

mark

[cliffordu]

1. Yep....

The dem base doesn't care about gun control as much as they used to....

[one-eyed fat man]

38. Which "base"?

The Union guys who felt they got shafted by Clinton with NAFTA and the '94 AWB?

The Hispanics who haven't seen the Immigration Reform promised?

The GLBT who are still waiting for the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell?"

The peace activists who are still incensed that we have troops anywhere and GITMO is still open?

The health care proponents who think that without the public option all that happened is 32 million people were forced to support evil greedy insurance companies?

The environmentalists who were apoplectic that drilling for oil anywhere was any part of any energy policy?

You can bet in the calculus of "What is going to happen in November" is certain parts of the base are going to be taken for "granted" under the assumption that they will either half-heartedly pull the "D" or at worst they will do is stay home rather than vote for pull a lever with an "R" attached to the name.

If gun control is off the table on election day and there is no drastic sea change, then gun control will become even less of an attractive future option for the Administration, regardless of how anti-gun key players have been in the past.

If there is a dramatic "house cleaning" then the argument that the AWB was the pivotal event that swept Newt into the Speaker's chair will be less potent.

Yes, I am that cynical. They figure that certain folks will vote with them no matter what they do just as they count on a certain number will always vote against them. So they are quietly figuring who can afford to ignore and who they have to pander to the maximize the chances of being re-elected. Best the rest of us can do is vote for the crooks with which we most agree.

[xchrom]

2. Then 'be smart' and vote for the republicans.

Gun control is important to many democratic voters.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. It can be hard to pull hte lever for your own party when every candidate is anti civil rights

at some level. Clearly they need better Democratic party candidates in PA

[virginia mountainman]

39. too bad gun RIGHTS...is important to many, many more voters. NT

[Better Today]

3. Without knowing what controls they are recommending, it's hard to have an opinion.

But with all that's going on in the world, I would hope that voters in PA aren't so stupid as to vote based on one position, one plank, of gun control.

[sandnsea]

4. Responsible ownership is not anti-gun

The ones who repeat that clap trap are the ones who hurt Democrats at the voting booth. Most people support gun laws, in one form or other. The problem is agreeing to what the laws should be, not that there should be laws.

[polichick]

8. +1

[spin]

12. Most of the current laws are reasonable ...

but could stand some improvement and most importantly some enforcement.

The NICS background check has eliminated many sales to people who under no circumstances should own a firearm. It should be better funded to allow more timely entries from states and it should be extended to ALL private sales of firearms.

Laws are already on the books to make carrying a firearm concealed illegal without a permit but often when caught criminals merely receive a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle. They merely walk though the revolving door of justice, and obtain another firearm often with tragic results.

More effort should be taken to focus gun control on those who misuse firearms and less on those who use firearms responsibly. "Feel good" laws accomplish little but are cheap and often used by politicians who wish to show that they have concern for gun violence in our country. Anyone who carries illegally or misuses a firearm to commit a crime needs to receive a sentence that involves a considerable amount of time in prison.

I fear that all too often, the people we elect are more interested in looking good than actually doing something worthwhile to reduce violent crime.

[benEzra]

15. Banning the responsible ownership of the most popular guns *is* anti-gun, though.

I have no problem with responsible ownership. Where I differ with the gun control lobby is what "responsible ownership" entails. It does not mean eschewing rifles with protruding handgrips/ergonomic stocks/flame dampers, guns with post-1860's magazine capacities, ownership for defensive purposes, or carry licensure.

[jazzhound]

25. Seems to me that you've set up a strawman here.

The vast majority of outspoken RKBA members on this forum agree with you on this statement:

Most people support gun laws, in one form or other. The problem is agreeing to what the laws should be, not that there should be laws.

[aquart]

5. Well, Dems aren't carrying guns in NYC.

Unless they're cops or national guard or carefully licensed.

Amazing how convenient and pleasant it is.

Managed to catch the silly bomber without having a shootout in Times Square.

I suppose, if he'd thought about it, he could have just driven the SUV to Virginia and picked up a semi-automatic and shot the lot of us. Maybe he just hasn't been an American long enough.

[benEzra]

17. Montpelier is convenient and pleasant, too.

So are Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Bangor, Concord, and all those other eeee-villll places where the non-rich and non-politically-connected are allowed to obtain carry licenses (or in the case of Vermont, carry without a license at all).

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. And like Montpelier, most of those places are chock full of Democrats.

A certain claque don't care to discuss *that* inconvenient truth.

[spin]

18. You could add that Democrats in NYC don't carry guns without political connection.

All too often the rich and famous of all political persuasions can legally carry in NYC while the poor who live in the bad neighborhoods are forbidden that privilege. I remember watching Don Imus when he was on MSNBC in the morning and seeing a handgun in a shoulder holster. He had a carry permit.

This list shows many famous people who have been issued concealed carry permits in NYC.
http://www.nndb.com/event/349/000172830/

I realize that all too often the object of gun control is to keep "those people" from owning or carrying firearms, but it is carried to an extreme in NYC. It would be far more fair to deny everybody the right to own or carry a firearm than to allow the privileged few to do so.

Also I dispute your argument that the "silly" bomber was stopped without a shootout. What exactly did he do that would have caused anyone to draw a firearm and stop him. He parked his vehicle and walked away. The only suspicious thing he did was pull his top shirt off on the street revealing a different colored shirt. No reason for anyone to stop him or draw down on him. He personally didn't threaten anyone. His vehicle and what was inside was the problem. Shooting the vehicle would have accomplished nothing.

[old mark]

19. I find it interesting how many antigun pols carry guns - as do many of their rich friends.

Just the "regular" people who can't be trusted and whose rights are a sometine thing.

mark

[GreenStormCloud]

30. In New York, "carefully licensed" = rich and politically connected N/T

[shadowrider]

33. He DID have a semi-auto in the SUV

[Euromutt]

44. And that's why there's never been any terrorism in western Europe

Oh, wait...

[movonne]

6. We have to put some stricter rules on guns....right now it seems

like it is going the other way...more gun rights...carry guns to church, to the natl parks, in stores, in bars...what is it you that you find restrictive..I personally think that we need more restrictions..

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Why? Murder and other violent crime rates are at the lowest levels in decades.

Care to explain your reasoning?

[hack89]

27. Since crime is at historic lows, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Yes, restrictions are being loosened, because the restrictions are stupid. N/T

[spin]

7. The truly sad part is that Republicans will benefit ...

and will quite possibly win the PA governors race.

Gun owners of all political backgrounds will turn out to defend their current rights and may form enough of a voting block to allow a Republican win.

Gun owners are often single issue voters and they show up to vote! Gun control as proposed by the Brady Campaign and supported by many Democratic politicians has been proven to be an issue where our party often shoots itself in the foot.

We seem to take one step forward and two back.

[onehandle]

10. 'Gun owners are often single issue voters'

Who cares about jobs, healthcare, and the economy?

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. But are jobs, healthcare, and the economy more important than gun control?

Some people would rather have 100% of nothing than 75-80% of something...

[jazzhound]

23. Apparently you don't, since in your ego-based support of bad gun "control"

legislation you are willing to push voters over to the GOP.

[spin]

26. All people should, but often gun owners have a significant investment ...

in their firearm collection. If they perceive a threat it impacts them directly far more than the complicated possibility of a collapsing economy which may or may not occur. The economy and healthcare are confusing issues which even experts find it difficult to agree upon.

Firearms are simple and easy to understand. The technology is fairly simple, it's far less complicated than microeconomics or macroeconomics or rocket science. The average gun owner is honest and responsible. He feels that the firearms he owns present no threat to anyone as long as they are in his hands. He does realize that firearms in the hands of those who are irresponsible or criminal do pose a serious threat.

When politicians favor plans that might directly impact his current firearms or his future purchases of firearms that he is interested in, he simply shows up at the voting booth to cast his vote for a candidate who will "protect his rights".

When a politician favors laws such as reinstating the "assault weapons" ban which involves banning or restricting firearms on appearance rather than lethality, the gun owner often feels the politician is also incompetent of understanding far more complicated issues. If they can't understand or comprehend a simple subject, why should he trust them to comprehend really difficult and confusing issues.

In other words, if a politician is incapable of calculating something as simple as a square root, why should a gun owner trust him to understand quantum physics.

Politicians realize that they have to appeal to their constituents. If the politician is running for an office in an area where few people own or understand firearms, he can gain votes by appealing to their lack of knowledge and fear. Since few people in his area comprehend the issue it's easy to promote ideas such as gun registration, restricting "assault weapons" and banning handguns. It's easy to tell people who have little knowledge of firearms that handguns are designed for killing and serve no other legitimate purpose. It seems logical and the many of the voters who have will agree with the politician.

The problem is that as firearm knowledge spreads and people realize that criminals are the problem not honest gun owners, the politician loses the support of many voters that he considered safe. Many voters have friends and family in areas of the country that have more gun friendly laws. They read and hear stories of how honest people deter criminal activity and survive because they have access to firearms. An incident happens to them or to a neighbor and they wonder why they are forbidden the rights to self defense that many other people in our nation have.

The truly sad part is that the Democratic candidate might be right on many far more important ideas. That is why the Democratic Party needs to abandon the draconian approach to gun control and instead focus on enforcing gun control on criminals and gang members by enforcing existing laws and severely punishing those who misuse firearms or carry them illegally. By doing so they will gain the support of gun owners and insure victory in close elections.

[jazzhound]

29. "in other words, if a politician is incapable of calculating something as simple

as a square oot, why should a gun owner trust him to understand quantum physics."

This is an extremely important point, IMO. The overall credibility loss that the Democratic Party has suffered as a result of pursuing assinine gun "control" measures has been grossly underestimated.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. If someone on your boat *insists* that it's necessary to drill holes in the bottom...

...even though that action has sunk other boats, it's time to throw the drill overboard.

[chibajoe]

50. Wouldn't it be smarter to throw

the driller overboard? It's not the drill's fault that some idiot wants to use it to sink the boat.

[jazzhound]

51. LOL

:thumbsup:

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Who cares about being able to defend yourself against violent crime? N/T

[shedevil69taz]

22. Eh not really

I am a gun owner and I voted for Obama even with his previously abismal record on gun control.

[jazzhound]

24. I hear you here.........but I think it's the Independent voters we need to be

thinking about, as well a percentage of D's and even R's. I have a family member who's a lifelong Republican. She claims that she voted for Obama in '08 due to the fiscal irresponsibility of her Republicans. If she had strong feelings about RKBA she might not vote for him (or a D candidate) in 2012. Bad gun control policy doesn't just push single-issue voters to the right, since it may be a "tipping point" issue for those who disagree with Obama -- and D's in general -- on a variety of other issues.

[spin]

28. I am also a gun owner and voted for Obama ...

however I realize that he was from Illinois and Chicago and a RKBA supporter in that region of the country would have had a hard time getting elected to the position of dog catcher. Obama is a very shrewd politician and I don't see him shooting himself and the party in the foot by pushing draconian gun control.

McCain was no real friend of gun owners and had he been elected and given half a chance would have sold gun owners out in a heartbeat. Many other gun owners distrust and despise McCain. Perhaps that's the reason he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, but she only showed his desperation and lack of judgment.

[RC]

9. .

[jazzhound]

11. For those who missed The Nation article "Democrat Killer".........

..........here's the link:

http://www.thenation.com/article/democrat-killer

One of the many sad delusions that many Dems suffer from w/regard to this issue is that they're taking "the moral high ground" with their support for worse-than-worthless gun control legislation.

Sigh.

It's why I won't give the party any more financial support.

[Euromutt]

47. Interesting piece, I thought (I had indeed not read it)

Not coincidentally, I supported Richardson in 2008.

There's some fucking howlers in that piece, though.

"<'Assault weapons' are> not good for public safety, and they're not good for public health," says Bill Jordan of New Mexico Voices for Children. "People don't want them, but there's a powerful gun lobby. And that's very sad."

Emphasis mine. Last year's run on semi-automatic rifles proved pretty conclusively that that particular claim was bullshit. But what do you expect from an organization the name of which alone already Lovejoys the discussion?

The Brady Campaign, in seeking to assuage the fears of opponents, notes in its literature that existing <"assault"> weapons can be kept, unregistered, under a grandfather provision; and, according to such data, it would not prevent the vast majority of shootings (although it might force gangs, whose shooters have increasingly favored automatic weapons, to utilize black-market purchasing more than they currently have to).

"Automatic weapons"? Research fail. That also goes for the "deadly carnage-machines" later on, right after various acknowledgments that so-called "assault weapons" aren't used in many crimes (and the weapons used in those were predominantly "assault pistols" like the TEC-9, which have ceased production even in AWB-compliant forms).

[rrneck]

13. "All politics is local. " Tip O'Neill nt

[sharesunited]

21. You know, at one time it was unpopular to speak in favor of civil rights for racial minorities.

Please remember that true leadership can be politically unpopular.

[proteus_lives]

34. Funny you say that when you support gun control.

Given it's racist and classist beginnings.

Sorry, I know the irony will go over your head.

[jazzhound]

35. Using the issue of civil rights to deny the civil right of self-defense.

Brilliant!

[sharesunited]

40. The right not to have bullets enter your body is not mentioned in the Constitution.

I guess it isn't a civil right?

[spin]

41. No, but the right to use a weapon that also fires bullets...

for self defense is mentioned in the Second Amendment.

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.

"Because 'reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

[proteus_lives]

42. And I was right.

Completely over your head.

[jazzhound]

43. You're notorious for your arrogant, unjustified claims that it is "axiomatic"

that implementing your preferred policy would save lives, but you haven't offered a sliver of evidence supporting those claims.

Your childish style of argument reminds me of the Olbermann promo on MSNBC. Modified, it would read.......

"Is this the sharesunited strategy? Don't change the (failed) message, just keep repeating it over and over again -- with greater and greater frequency?"

[sharesunited]

45. I am trying to tell you I am right as humbly as I can.

The gun homicide rate in the USA is 9x that of Australia and 24x that of England.

Now, you may argue that the USA is inherently more violent according to custom and tradition, and this may be true. But why enable it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. You may sincerely believe you are right, but you have yet to demonstrate it

Belief without evidence is religion, and not a good basis for public policy anywhere.

[sharesunited]

48. Are all men created equal? Or is that a belief without evidence because we want it to be so?

[jazzhound]

49. Sorry, but no "humble man" could possibly show the degree of contempt

toward the science of criminology that you have.

And no "humble man" views his own beliefs as "axiomatic" with the regularity that you do while failing to disclose evidence which supports those beliefs.

[rrneck]

52. LOL!

The only thing you're right about is your own sense of self importance. To you.