Would you support a pro-gun Democrat?

[MercutioATC]

I'm not talking about giving rocket launchers to people, but somebody who could attract the pro-gun crowd.

I know this is a gun issue, but nobody really goes to the gungeon, so I'm hoping this'll get left here in GD as it's also really a political/campaign issue...

[nonconformist]

1. The illusion that Democrats want to take your guns needs to end

It's very false and very damaging with a lot of voters.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. Absolutely NOTHING wrong with responsible, law-abiding gun-owners...

...and although I'm personally against any kind of firearms in my home, I also realize I live in a suburb and a good watchdog (our unfriendly Chow-Chow) is more than enough protection for our family while there are many more Americans who live in less populated areas and perhaps owning a few good guns isn't such a bad thing!

[Blue_Tires]

128. that's my thought as well

[BlueCaliDem]

133. Great minds think alike! :-D The problem is, the repukes have...

...forced a lie onto the American electorate making it seem as if Democrats are against responsible gun-ownership when nothing's further from the truth.

Fact of the matter is, Democrats and Republicans from liberals to conservative all believe there should be some kind of modest firearm regulation, i.e., not letting any firearms fall into the hands of potentially dangerous people, as one example.

Is that so wrong? Of course it isn't. That's why the Democrats need to make clear that the Republican-friendly NRA stop with the vicious lies about "liberals wanting to take your gun away", and they haven't been doin' such a great job, I'm afraid.

That's what needs to be changed.

[enfield collector]

217. you might want to tell kenedy, boxer, schumer, feinstein, kerry

and all the other authoritarian gun grabbers to STFU then, because they sure as shit make us look like we want to take all guns away.

[blm]

70. I agree - why give in to a FALSE PREMISE? That IS a REAL sign of weakness.

.

[lastliberalintexas]

72. Some politicians and voters do

However, not all are actually Dems. When Hyde was in Congress, he would have gladly voted for legislation that called for the confiscation of all guns from the citizenry. And then there really are some voters (and even some DUers) who would happily support such legislation as well, though by no means are they all Dem voters either. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out which Duers. :)

[harpo]

101. they can take my guns...from my cold dead hands

[warrens]

124. I've been an active skeet shooter since I was a teenager

My objection is gun shows and crooked gun sellers, who will sell anything to anyone. The gun industry, with their super-profitable TEC-9s and all that crap, is not unlike the cigarette industry. If you look at the sales figures, they'd go broke selling to law-abiding gun owners. Shotgun sales have been flat since the 1970s, and the same with hunting rifles.

But that is a separate issue.

[benEzra]

149. Ummm...Intratec has been out of business for years, IIRC...

My objection is gun shows and crooked gun sellers, who will sell anything to anyone. The gun industry, with their super-profitable TEC-9s and all that crap, is not unlike the cigarette industry.

Intratec has been out of business for years, IIRC. TEC-9's and DC-9's (9mm pistols with very modern styling) sold well on their looks but developed a well-deserved reputation as cheaply made jam-o-matics. A Glock or Smith & Wesson 9mm pistol gives you the same rate of fire, similar magazine capacity, vastly improved reliability, and is more concealable to boot.

If you look at the sales figures, they'd go broke selling to law-abiding gun owners. Shotgun sales have been flat since the 1970s, and the same with hunting rifles.

Why in the world are you under the impression that law-abiding gun owners would only buy shotguns and hunting rifles?

Since 80% of American gun owners don't hunt, one would expect weak sales of hunting guns and strong sales of smaller-caliber nonhunting guns suitable for recreational target shooting, plinking, and/or defensive use. Winchester just went out of business, but Smith & Wesson, Glock, Sig-Sauer, Armalite, Bushmaster, DSA, DPMS, Springfield Armory, Ruger, Kel-Tec, etc. are all doing VERY well.

Between us, my wife and I own several rifles and handguns (no hunting rifles or shotguns, though). My wife is in the market for a 1911 at the moment...

[MercutioATC]

162. I;m a law-abiding Democrat with a FBI-issued secret secutity clearance...

...and I just bought a Glock 19.

We law-abiding folks buy more than hunting rifles (thanks for pointing that out).

[benEzra]

148. What if my gun is a rifle with a handgrip that sticks out?

The illusion that Democrats want to take your guns needs to end. It's very false and very damaging with a lot of voters.

I agree totally. The problem is, what if my gun is a rifle with a handgrip that sticks out? Like most gun owners, I don't hunt, and unfortunately the crusade to ban nonhunting guns is alive and well.

Attempts to ban civilian rifles with protruding handgrips, shotguns with detachable magazines, or all civilian firearms holding more than 10 rounds are constantly in the news (and broadcast far and wide among the gun owning community), and THAT is where the party's problems on the issue generally exist.

[Noisy Democrat]

2. As a gun-owning Democrat

I'd have to ask what you mean by pro-gun. I support sensible gun controls; I'm with Kerry when he says he supports hunters' rights to own guns but he's never gone hunting with an AK-47. I don't want to give up my handgun. So I have to ask whether by pro-gun you mean "assault-weapons-loving nut" or just reasonable protector of gun owners' rights.

[MercutioATC]

7. I'm looking to end the "Dems want to take your guns" issue...

As nonconformist said above, it's damaging. In most cases, it's also false. I think a sensible gun rights plank is something our next candidate is going to need in their platform.

[tenshi816]

50. Absolutely.

It would attract people like my father back to the party. My dad is a wavering Republican who used to vote Democratic. The gun issue played a big part in his defection, because the Republicans did such a good job convincing him that the Democrats would make all gun ownership illegal. My dad is a keen hunter and can't stand the thought of losing his hunting rifles.

[Llewlladdwr]

152. "never gone hunting with an AK-47"

And herein lies the problem. I have no criminal record and no history of mental illness. That being the case who the hell are you (or John Kerry) to tell me I can't have an AK-47 if I want one?

[Bucky]

206. If I went hunting, I'd sure take an AK47. We got mean-assed deer in Texas

And the quail. Dude, don't even start me in on our quail. Those bastards are mean.

[enfield collector]

218. good choice, the 7.62x39 round is balistically equivalent to the win 30-30

of course kenedy and kerry want to ban the 30-30 because it's "armor-piercing"

[donheld]

3. Howard Dean is very high on the NRA's list

Yes I would support a pro-gun candidate.

[Flabbergasted]

4. Take the politics back to WA! We're not a game to play!

[Selatius]

5. I won't support a person who favors abolition of guns, but...

I would support a guy who thinks this:

1. If you cannot demonstrate how to competently store, handle a gun, especially with children in the home, you should not be allowed to have a gun.

2. If you have a criminal history, the answer is no.

3. We should enforce gun safety regulations in effect now and enact more regulations if it seems current laws are inadequate.

[benburch]

6. Of course I would!

What a silly question.

[jschurchin]

8. Personally, I do not own..........

a firearm. However the constitution requires a well armed militia to defend our nation. We need to, as a people (including our representatives), respect this document.

[MercutioATC]

9. Actually, the "well armed militia" is to defend us from our government...

It's one of the safeguards the framers thoughtfully put in place.

...I'm always amazed by their ability to plan for every possibility...

[Capn Sunshine]

49. Excuse me, the "well armed militia"is the Nat'l Guard

and a "keep" is 18th century speak for an armory.

But with the jackboots waiting in wings for their cue, armaments at home may come in handy for national defense after all.

[immoderate]

62. Can you reference that?

It seems quite clear from the Federalist Papers that a "well-regulated militia" consists of citizens with their own arms who are competent to use them.

Did colonies have national guard armories? I don't think so.

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

68. If he can't, I will....

And what is crystal clear from the Federalist Papers is that only well regulated state militias are under discussion. Individual possession is never even mentioned.

[immoderate]

73. Well hello MrBenchley!

We have done this before and unless you rewrote the Federalist Papers that is not so. I pointed out to you how the phrase "well regulated militias" was used by the founders and you were at a loss to furnish contradictory examples. But being wrong never even slows you down.

Your disciple here is anxious to confuse the issue. While the noun form of "keep" might refer to a part of a castle, it's hard to torture the language enough to make a credible case that "to keep" as in the Second Amendment is an infinitive, and it means to maintain possession.

But you can give it a shot. (If you are caught or captured, the agency will disavow any connection to your operation.)

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

135. Hahaha...There's no individual right to a gun in the Second

The courts, the Founding Fathers and the ACLU all agree.

"I pointed out to you how the phrase "well regulated militias" was used by the founders and you were at a loss to furnish contradictory examples."
Were you the guy trying to pass off the Lloyd Bridges gambit?

[BeFree]

84. It didn't have to be mentioned

Everyone had a gun back then.

Think of it this way: Had they said we want you to register your guns, there would have been a second revolution then and there.

Indeed, any discussion about guns back then, would have been how good it was everyone had a gun they could use to shoot the red coats.

[MrBenchley]

136. Hahahaha.....

Learn some REAL history someday.

[BeFree]

145. From you?

That's a laugh.

No response to the statement, eh? Just a dig?

Everybody had guns back then, and everyone who wants a gun now can get one. And you want everyone to conform to your ideas? Hah!

[MrBenchley]

175. Yeah, this revisionist history from the pro-gun crowd IS a laugh

[slackmaster]

89. The very idea of a militia is predicated on individual possession of arms

Logic is a pretty little bird.

[MrBenchley]

137. Another gun fact that's 100% false...

Your logic is more like a vermin-ridden dead starling...and not a freshly dead one either...

[sierrajim]

147. You may want to look here

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

--- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)
http://www.shash.com/quotes.html

[MrBenchley]

176. Yeah, I've seen quotes yanked out of context before....

[sierrajim]

191. Please tell me

What is out of context, it appears to plain and to the point.

[crankybubba]

214. It's because it does'nt agree with his agenda.

if it dosen't agree with his worldview its either:
(a) Lies
(b) right wing horseshit
(c) been freeped(for polls)
(d) nra propaganda
(e) gun owners are right wing racists.

You'll notice that all of his stuff he posts from the bradys/vpc crowd is gospel(according to him) even if it's been discredited

[Hekate]

167. That's how I read it too. Well REGULATED militia, i.e. State Nat'l Guard

Thanks, Mr Benchley.

Hekate

[MrBenchley]

177. That's exactly how the courts have always read it as well....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=49341

The closest the gun loonies have gotten to getting their dishonest claims put through is in the most backward court in deep Dixie, the fifth Citcuit, in the Emerson case (Emerson being a loony who threatened his wife with a gun he wasn't supposed to home). The justices shoehorned a lot of NRA propaganda into the marginalia before deciding that the Second Amendment didn't apply and taking away Emerson's guns.

[harpo]

138. actually there is a debate there...some believe it, others don't...

There are militia's all over the country....and they aren't the national guard.

[MrBenchley]

180. Wow...funnier and funnier....

"There are militia's all over the country....and they aren't the national guard."
Yeah, white supremacists have always been a big noise...

[Dhampir Kampf]

237. Militias are a group of armed, and trained persons.

Would gangs not fall under this category?

They have guns, and they are raised, and trained by other members within the gang.

Sounds a lot like a militia to me.

[Llewlladdwr]

154. "keep" is 18th century speak for an armory"

If you can provide a cite for that I'd greatly appreciate it.

[RoyGBiv]

10. Uh, yes ...

I really don't understand the question. Democrats are not, by and large, "anti-gun."

A lot of Dems are probably anti-howtizer in your backyard, but that's something else altogether.

[MercutioATC]

14. Dems are percieved as wanting to take people's guns away...

...it's not accurate, but it's hurting us. I think a candidate who could strongly state his belief that private gun ownership is at least acceptable (and even positive) would be an asset.

Some Dem voters, however, disagree.

I'm just trying to gauge where DU stands on the issue.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Understood ...

Thanks for the clarification.

And, you're correct, but I'm not exactly sure a strongly stated belief would do it in those regions where the issue of gun ownership is of utmost importance. In OK, for example, it would be hard to find a Democrat running for any office anywhere who would voice an opinion even suggesting the need for gun control. I mean, we're a concealed carry state, and that law passed, was celebrated in fact, with a Democratic legislature. Yet, Democrats are still perceived as anti-gun here.

Republicans have been very good at this game.

As a side note, I would just hope that a pro-gun Democratic candidate, in expressing a strong belief, doesn't go so far as to do something as monumentally stupid as what Dukakis did with the tank when trying to show how strong he was on defense. I can, sadly, see it now ... Democrat on a quail hunt.

[MercutioATC]

25. I agree.

I REALLY hesitate to mention Paul Hackett's name, but that's the type of candidate I'm talking about. Somebody who's percieved as a plain-speaking person who has lived with guns and supports private gun ownership. We DON'T need a former-anti-gun candidate or firearm neophyte who's just blowing smoke. That'd be another Dukakis episode.

[RoyGBiv]

33. Not a bad choice ...

I don't agree with him on everything, but them I'm not one of those who believes in orthodoxy, especially in terms of a party as diverse as the Democratic party. A few core things are deal-breakers with me, but I'm fully cognizant of the regional challenges for Democrats. IOW, you can't be a Massachetts liberal in Texas, and you can be a Southern Dem in San Francisco.

Speaking of Dukakis, as much as I love and admire him, I will never forgive that man for doing that. I was in college at the time, my first election cycle in which I was able to vote, and I was completely fired up about it. In my government class I jumped at the chance to do a mock Presidential debate as a semester project. I spent countless hours on it, dug up facts and statistics and quotes and just all kinds of stuff. I had my speech teacher coach me and an English professor assess my style. I was All In. Three days before I gave my presentation, by myself, to a packed house in the student union against a *team* of four supporting Bush, Dukakis did that tank thing. I went first, based on a coin toss, and had the audience, who would serve as collective judges and declare a winner by applause, eating out my hand. I could see it, see them being won over. Then my opponent got up, the spokesman for the team. He said something to the effect of, "Well, I don't have a bunch of facts and figures to throw at you and put you to sleep, but I do have this ..." He held up a blown up picture of Dukakis in the tank. He spoke for less than a minute.

The applause-o-meter went red and then wrapped around again for him.

[cartach]

31. Or Kerry on a goose hunt

[blm]

71. Kerry has hunted for over 50 yrs. Media LIES shouldn't be SWALLOWED by

even gullible Dems, they need to be countered.

[cartach]

164. It's not about lies or no lies - it's about an attempt

by Kerry to play up to the the pro-gun voters.Supposed to give a subtle message and just came across as phony and amateurish.I have no doubt he's hunted for 50 years,and that's good because he could have given an educated opinion, if he would have just come out and gave his views on the gun question.Plain talk is what's needed not a bullshit photo op.The media made a joke out of it and Dems,even gullible ones I'm sure, did'nt swallow it,but they were pissed off.A lot of Dems wound up at the end wishing that Kerry had conducted a more professional campaign.Don't blame the media for everything,that's sometimes an overused way of getting off the hook.

[benEzra]

183. The problem was, Kerry's staff didn't realize that hunting is

largely IRRELEVANT to the gun issue, as it stood in 2004 (or 2006, for that matter).

To start with, only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter; that means 4 out of 5 are NOT hunters. Therefore, a strategy of talking-up-hunting-while-demonizing-nonhunters was and is a guaranteed bomb from the start.

Add to that the fact that of the 20% of gun owners who hunt, many (most?) also own nonhunting guns like the prohibitionists want to ban, and the 2004 Democratic strategy begins to look like it was designed by Karl Rove. Play to the tiny minority of gun owners who both hunt and don't own any nonhunting guns, while simultaneously working hard to alienate those gunnies who DON'T HUNT by attempting to outlaw the modern-looking small-caliber guns that are so popular among us Gen-X and Gen-Y, politically active, Internet savvy gun owners.

Finally, no one I know thinks that the prohibitionists are after skeet shotguns or bolt-action deer rifles anytime soon. They aren't the issue; the issue is self-loading long guns, long guns with ergonomic stocks or modern styling, and guns holding more than 10 rounds. So the "I support your right to own a $10,000 Perazzi skeet shotgun" line means absolutely nothing to those on the fence trying to figure out whether or not a candidate will respect their right to keep their guns.

As I mentioned in another post, I personally DON'T CARE if I'm "allowed" to own a big skeet shotgun or a high-powered deer rifle; I don't hunt and I don't shoot skeet. We want to keep our modern-looking small-caliber rifles and our 9mm pistols, thanks.

[MrBenchley]

64. But only perceived that way by the lunatic fringe

Who aren't voting Democratic unless Strom comes back from the dead with his Dixiecrats.

Most voters prefer gun control. You'll notice even the GOP has to pay lip service to gun control, even as they bend over for the scum of the earth.

[MercutioATC]

96. I disagree

Especially when one of the possible Dem Prez candidates is decidedly anti-gun (Hillary Clinton).

I know plenty of moderate Republicans who would have a much easier time voting Dem if they didn't feel that most Dems were against private gun ownership. A Dem that came out strongly in favor of responsible private gun ownership and tough on gun crime would be appealing to them.

[MrBenchley]

139. Yeah, and you'd be full of it....

"I know plenty of moderate Republicans who would have a much easier time voting Dem if they didn't feel that most Dems were against private gun ownership."
Good job explaining real issues, there.

[MercutioATC]

155. Why so hostile?

Yeah, we disagree, but I don't understand your anger.

[MrBenchley]

179. LOL!

[MercutioATC]

200. Well, hostile and (possibly) maniacally gleeful...

Dude, it's a spooky combination...

[DemInDistress]

11. I don't own a gun, don't like guns BUT would support any good

Democrat who does...Good luck to him, he has my vote !!

[NaturalHigh]

12. Absolutely...

and I would NOT support an anti-gun rights Democrat, Republican, Green, whatever.

[Erika]

13. Our household has five firearms n/t

[LSK]

15. if it means giving Conyers the Judiciary Chair - hell yes

[DenaliDemocrat]

16. Gun Control

Has cost us many an election. We get pro-gun, we never lose again.

[MercutioATC]

20. So can Dems stop being whiny little girls about it already??

(no offense intended to the clinically depressed, little people, or those of the female gender)

We don't need a candidate that will dress up in hunting gear, we need somebody who will plainly state that they support private ownership of firearms. We need somebody to say that they don't want to register handguns (any more than they're already registered) or enact more gun laws.

I'm agnostic, but somebody who'll say firearm ownership is a god-given right wouldn't hurt, either.


We're seen as a party that wants to restrict anything that has the POSSIBILITY of causing harm. Let a Dem stand up and say that guns aren't the problem, people who misuse guns are. Let them say that other Dems have been wrong. Let them say that the focus should be people who misuse guns, not people who own guns.

I think we'd have a real contender.

[RagingInMiami]

17. I am a pro-gun democrat

so of course I would.

[Jane Austin]

19. Sometimes I think Hilary Clinton lives in a time warp.

Why now to come out for more gun control?

Now is when formerly anti-gun people like me are seeing that there are some dangers out there.

There are dangerous critters out here in the country; there are dangerous people out there along the interstates; and there is a more and more dangerous government out there.

She's for the war when almost everybody is against it and she's against guns when there are more and more "Meat-eatin', gun-totin' liberals" making themselves known.

[sandnsea]

21. As opposed to what???

A pro-gun Democrat or a pro-gun Republican?? I don't get the nuance of the question, seems like a no-brainer to me. :shrug:

[MercutioATC]

27. Think Hillary Clinton.

She had nothing to do with this poll, but she's an example of a Dem who supports expanded gun control.

I think we need a completely different message. Dems are seen as the "we're gonna take your guns away" party and I think a candidate who could persuasively campaign with a pro-gun rights plank in their platform could be an asset.

[sandnsea]

34. Well eeew

Don't put Hillary in my head, that's just nasty.

I think we need a gun responsibility plank, and plainly ask folks in rural areas to help create policy to reduce gun deaths in the cities. We're all one country and nobody wants a stolen gun from Cheyenne to kill a kid in Orlando. So no, I don't think we need a pro-gun plank.

Just as I don't think we need a gun control plank, which is what it's already being called. I heard about it, cringed, and didn't even read it. We're already going to have a helluva time explaining our immigration policy. One headache at a time, thank you very much.

[Broken_Hero]

22. Abosolutely...n/t

[rpannier]

23. You mean like Dean?

Yes

[Oeditpus Rex]

24. Let's put it this way:

All other things being equal, I'd support a candidate who stood behind all constitutional rights and was vocal about it.

I'm not a fan of guns, but, goddammit, the right to own them is guaranteed by the Constitution. No matter how anyone feels about it, unless that's changed it's the prevailing law of the land.

[Lexingtonian]

26. yuck.

It would depend on the situation. In urban and suburban areas in 2006, no, it's inexcusable. In exurban and rural areas probably yes, making the standard assumption that the Republican is the usual business-prostituted knuckledragging rockhead.

[MercutioATC]

28. I respect your opinion, but that's the millstone around our necks, IMO.

I live in suburbia. I own a handgun. I'm responsible with it.

Why should anybody restrict my ability to own it?


I'm not really asking you, that's another thread. I'm just laying out the opposing arguement. I think we need a candidate that supports going after the people who misuse guns, not people who own them.

...just my position...

[Lexingtonian]

41. What "misusing" a gun is

changes through time and at the moment depends very greatly on the locale you're in.

Carrying any sort of gun in the open or bradishing it in any situation in my town will probably get you a visit involving three to five police cruisers. Not out of some panic, either. For 90% of things it's the deeply annoyed 'WTF good did you think you could possibly do with that shit?" deal.

[MercutioATC]

91. Well, I'm in Ohio and CCW is legal here...

Not "brandishing", but CCW.

"Misusing" would be any action that's against the law...THOSE are the owners who need to be dealt with, not owners who are responsible.

[doc03]

205. I'm in Ohio too and remember all the debate on

DU a couple years ago about Ohio's CCW law. The anti-gun folks were all predicting blood running in streets in Ohio because of the CCW law. I haven't seen or heard of any crime statistics showing any increase at all since then. I'm sure if there were any increase we would be well aware of it.

[Sugarcoated]

29. Russ Feingold has a pretty decent gun-friendly record

I believe he even started legislation in Wisconsin something having to do with gun ownership. He believes firmly in the 2nd amendment and that it is clear that we have the right to bear arms. Now, that will play very well with the 'bama people, some anyway.

[MercutioATC]

30. Yeah, but votes like THESE will hurt him:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Russell_Feingold_Gun_Control.htm

[Sugarcoated]

32. It's not a Repub kind of record, but it's got some support for gun toters

Defending the Second Amendment:

-Senator Feingold believes that the United States Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to keep and bear arms. As a Wisconsin State Senator, Senator Feingold co-sponsored and helped to write a constitutional amendment to ensure this right.

-Senator Feingold has consistently opposed proposals to ban handguns.

-In 1993, Senator Feingold voted to stop a licensing fee increase for people who sell guns.

-In 1998, Senator Feingold voted to prevent back door gun licensing and to prevent the creation of a government master list of gun owners.

-In Summer of 2002, Senator Feingold voted to allow airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpits of airplanes.

-In Fall of 2002, Senator Feingold voted to let off-duty and retired police officers carry a gun outside their jurisdiction.

-In the April 2003 election, Senator Feingold was pleased to vote for a statewide referendum, which guaranteed Wisconsinites the right to hunt, fish and trap.

[benEzra]

216. Feingold also opposes the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch...

which is a huge point in his favor in my book.

[sandnsea]

35. People support that

People supported the assault weapon ban, Bush ran on a promise to keep it. People also support the background checks, even at gunshows. The gun manufacture one was political, I don't remember it all, so I won't make a judgment on that vote. But these are good votes, people are not for a gun free-for-all. All the gun owners I know support responsible gun regulations.

[Hobarticus]

44. Still, I know folks who are one-issue voters: GUNS

And if the "bad democrats are tryin' to take my guns" schtick is of fthe table, then it's back to square one.

[DrGonzoLives]

58. Dude

You don't win statewide elections in Wisconsin by being painted as anti-gun. Madison, Milwaukee, maybe, but not out in the sticks, where they love hunting.

In other words, he's doing something right.

[MrBenchley]

57. LOL! That would be "anti-gun Russ Feingold" according to the GOA & NRA

http://www.gunowners.org/a030601.htm

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/gt-report/gt-report_037.html

Face it, this gun rights crap is nothing but right wing racism and craziness hiding under a different sheet. There's no reason to pander to the fuckwits of the world and alienate core Democratic voters who support gun control.

[MercutioATC]

97. What about the Dems who DON'T support expanded gun control?

Judging by the poll here, it seems there are more of them than pro-gun-control folks...

[MrBenchley]

134. LOL!

Yeah, another trolled RKBA poll on DU...wonder how many trackbacks from gun loony sites this one pulled?

[MercutioATC]

153. Hopefully, quite a few.

Maybe then they'll realize that we're not all anti-gun nuts.

[MrBenchley]

172. Hilarious...who cares what "they" think?

"They" aren't voting Democrat unless Strom Thurmond comes back with his Dixiecrats. Hell, John Kerry was a war hero and a hunter, and he wasn't pro-gun enough to suit the loonies.

[MercutioATC]

199. I've noticed...you find SO many things funny...

:eyes:

To answer your question, I care. Most Democrats (even on a board as far to the left as DU) don't want to interfere with a person's right to own guns. The more people see discussions like this, the less apt they are to perpetuate the stereotype.

[MrBenchley]

208. A lot of this crap is ludicrous in the extreme.....

Most democrats support gun control, as do most voters. And the more people see discussions like this, the more likely they are to notice that our "pro gun democrats" are all "pro gun" and not a speck of "democrat."

[crankybubba]

190. you say that every time you lose a poll...

hilarious...(;))

[Chulanowa]

36. Certainally

As is often said, guns don't kill people, people kill people. I myself hunt for a fair amount of the meat I have in my freezer. I also have need of a handgun in the event of a bear deciding that me or part of my family would look good in its food chain.

I do support some limited control - A gun ownership test, like a driving test, would be just fine for me.

[cboy4]

37. Of course, but the candidate would really need to be in favor

of gun control measures.

I suppose I could still vote for someone who was not, as long as I agreed with them on a majority of other hot button issues.

[DLnyc]

38. Not a good issue to get hung up on, right now.

To me, we should focus on whether we continue to have a democracy, whether we should be avoiding catastrophic climate change, whether we want government to be an organized criminal enterprise or to function for the good of the people, whether we want continual pointless war, things like that. I liked the idea of better gun control when things were relatively peaceful, but right now I think that's sort of a luxury issue.

So, someone's gun control stance wouldn't affect my vote one way or the other. Their stance on voting integrity, unlimited executive power, global warming, corruption/coprorate control of the political process and war would be much more important.

[Hobarticus]

39. Not one to get hung up on, but it should be addressed...

You've got a wide range of long-term, "big picture" issues that are important to you, and that's a good thing.

But not everyone thinks like that (disappointingly). Rather, they're looking at how government affects them day-to-day. And so far, the GOP's been beating the snot out of the Dems with those short-sighted folks on issues like guns and other non-crucial issues.

I'd love to see a Dem candidate stand up and say, "I don't want your guns. I want the current laws enforced." That's all they need to say, and yet we're so afraid to even go that far.

If we'd throw this plank out there in time for '06, we position ourselves to do something about the wide-ranging issues that you and I and every other person on DU sees as crucial. We can't let any issue be a throwaway anymore, not with everything that you've mentioned at stake. I see this as a step on the path to taking back our government from these kookaburras.

[DLnyc]

43. I agree and disagree, I guess.

I do think it's a very bad idea, right now, for Dems to be focusing on gun control. I think we need a very wide base right now (especially considering the vote fraud we have to overcome) and there's a wealth of people who share basic democratic values but like their guns. So I think I agree with you there.

The problem, to me, is that I think there is also a sort of 'hard-core 20%' who tend to be viscerally pro-gun AND pro-repub. That's why the repubs love this issue--it fires up a very healthy portion of their base. For these types, it's very unlikely that any dem candidate will impress them as MORE 'gun-friendly' than the repub candidate.

So, yes I would vote for the guy but I'd rather see it as an issue where individual candidates say they have no intention of taking away people's legitimate guns and then go on to more important issues than see a plank which tries to outdo the repubs on an issue where repubs have hard-core knee-jerk support.

Just my opinion, though.

[Hobarticus]

46. True dat....you'll never reach that 20% anways...

But, maybe you can nibble away at it, little by little. Maybe a handful in that mix who have guns and are smart enough to know when to vote in their own best interests might come along. Can't buy no ammo or hunting licenses when they don't have a job, and can't hunt when the wetlands are dried up or sold off to private development. I know hunters who are VERY avid conservationists, and the environment is very important to them. It's not a big jump from being pro-gun to being pro-environment, for these guys. It may seem incongruous to value the enviornment and hunt, and many here probably find that repulsive, but that's the kind of big-picture connection that the Dems need to be making.

[DLnyc]

48. Yes, I agree. Major areas where hunters and eco-types share values.

Dem's over the years (esp. between JFK and Clinton), I think, got into competing between each other for who could be the most fervently pro this-or-that group. This worked okay when way more than half of the registered voters were dem anyway, so the competition was for groups in the party that would win anyway. Right now, I think, we need a 'big-picture connection', as you say, that focuses on issues important to the country as a whole, not just to dems. So, yeah, it's a good time to welcome people who like their guns into a party that shares their values in caring about the environment and not liking totalitarian government.

Also, if shrubco fails to implode by this summer, we may need that 'well-ordered militia' more than we realize now.

[DrGonzoLives]

60. We're not saying "focus on gun control"

We're saying that having a Democrat who will address the issues you mention, and just happens to be someone that the one-issue gun rights people will vote for, would be kind of a good thing.

[cartach]

40. Voted yes but........

I would'nt think much of a pro-gun Democrat if he wanted to make that issue a main one.I think Republicans/NRA's overdo the gun issue and remind me of a bunch of burnt out macho types who consider a gun an extension of their penis.That's not to say I disagree with the right to own a gun,I have a couple myself.Democrats who are pro-gun can assure those who are concerned about having their basic rights to own a gun taken away from them that they won't,without having to wave one around in photo ops, or make the mistake of inviting the press along on a staged hunt like Kerry did.That backfired.

[sutz12]

45. Certainly.

I would support a guy who offers a moratorium on new legislation and concentrates on enforcing existing laws better.

Repugs get a lot of mileage out of labeling Dems anti-gun, when it ain't necessarily true. Clinton did OK with the gun crowd, even after Brady.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baby_mouse]

51. No problem with guns so long as they're regulated sensibly

I think a lot of gun problems could be circumvented by addressing the problem laterally, removing poverty and criminal culture.

[w8liftinglady]

100. very true..

[Heidi]

52. Yes, with reservations.

Before I voted for a pro-gun Democrat, I would want to hear how he or she would deal with gun-related violence. But I do support the Second Amendment, and I don't believe guns should be kept out of the hands of law-abiding folks.

[-..__...]

53. Define "pro-gun".

I'm sick and tired of hearing people say "I support the 2nd amendemnt,but..."

"There's no need for a civilian to own a semi-automatic rifle"...

"No one needs an Uzi for hunting"...

"Gun owners should be licensed and guns should be registered"...

"There's no legitimate reason to purchase more than one handgun a month"...

And last but not least... "I support a common sense approach to gun control laws"
(What the hell does that mean)?

The "I support the 2nd amendment" part is good news from any candidate; it's the but part
that makes me want to gouge their eyes out.

[xchrom]

54. where's the ''i may not have a choice'' column?

[MercutioATC]

92. That'd be "Other"...

:) :hi:

[immoderate]

55. Their worst nightmare -- a liberal with a gun!

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

61. Actually, they whack their willies over that....

And since our "liberals with a gun" don't do a fucking thing except post right wing horseshit here and keep quiet when they see freeper filth on gun websites, why would they be in anyway disturbed?

[400Years]

79. yeah, You and Tom DeLay, how disgusting

[MrBenchley]

140. Delay is pro-gun all the way....

and a sterling example of the kind of politician who's pro-gun...bigoted, corrupt, dishonest, cowardly and crazy as a shithouse rat.

[MrBenchley]

56. Kerry was a war hero and hunter, but wasn't pro-gun enough for the loonys

Fuck em...there's no reason to compromise with the Randy Weaver wannabe club...especially since most voters favor gun control.

[4 t 4]

63. I find the response here

really surprising. I hate guns and would never support a pro-gun position. Guns Don't Kill-People do! yea people WITH guns, guns suck!!

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

93. That applies to oil companies, tobacco companies, etc...

Are you advocating restricting the adult use of cigarettes and gasoline, too?

[MrBenchley]

141. LOL!

So that's your defense of the gun industry...that they're as rotten as big tobacco? Weird.

[MercutioATC]

194. No, I'm simply stating that unless you're a non-smoker who walks a lot,

you have no room to talk. You use products made by irresponsible companies every day.

I don't see the logic in singling out firearm manufacturers.

[MrBenchley]

207. LOL!

"You use products made by irresponsible companies every day."
And that by you is a defense of the scum of the earth....like I said, pretty fucking weird.

[DrGonzoLives]

65. Back that up

"most voters favor gun control"

Show us some evidence. And what kind of gun control?

I know this is hard for you to believe, but few gun owners are the Randy Weaver loons.

What's funny is that for any other subject, all you do is excoriate anyone on the left. I would think someone as milquetoast...er, moderate as you are would see the benefits towards reaching out to the majority of gun owners who would otherwise vote Democratic.

[MrBenchley]

67. Happy to....

Try any of the studies of the Joyce foundation...or this study.

--90% of Americans want to close the gun show loophole
--86% want increased penalties for gun trafficking
--79% want background checks for ALL firearm transactions
--77% want an assault weapons ban....
--67% want ALL firearms registered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29642

"few gun owners are the Randy Weaver loons"
He says, in a thread where we're told that we need our guns for the revolution....(just like Randy Weaver would say)....in fact, you jumped in to defend that imbecilic notion.

"I would think someone as milquetoast...er, moderate as you are would see the benefits towards reaching out to the majority of gun owners who would otherwise vote Democratic."
Yeah, having a gun sure makes you one manly mofo, all righty. Meanwhile, any fuckwit who thinks the most important issue facing the nation is that he's going to lose his popugunm is a grade A moron, not worth addressing.

[DrGonzoLives]

83. Do you do anything other than assume?

"He says, in a thread where we're told that we need our guns for the revolution"

One person said that. OH SNAP EVERYONE THINKS THAT WAY

"Yeah, having a gun sure makes you one manly mofo, all righty."

Who is saying that here?

"Meanwhile, any fuckwit who thinks the most important issue facing the nation is that he's going to lose his popugunm is a grade A moron, not worth addressing."

But we DO need to talk to the pro-war people and make them happy, right?

Furthermore, the results of that survey demonstrates that most gun owners aren't the Randy Weaver stereotype that you spent all your time screaming about. Of course, nothing about how they got those numbers is presented, but, hey, who cares about facts as long as you agree with the result, right?

[MrBenchley]

178. I let you speak for yourselves, and snicker at the results....

"One person said that."
And you leapt in to defend it.

"the results of that survey demonstrates that most gun owners aren't the Randy Weaver stereotype"
So there's no reason to suck up to those types. Now I suggest you go cry abnout how unfair it is that gun loonies are the scum of the earth to someone who gives a shit.

[derby378]

86. That 77% figure on the semi-auto ban has been skewed

The polls indicating that number are fundametally flawed due to observer bias and bias within the questions themselves.

Prove me wrong. Please.

[MrBenchley]

182. Not even close to true....

But you go ahead and pretend that America is jonesing for assault weapons...it only points up how dishonest the "gun rights" question is.

[Hobarticus]

78. Sorry, but Kerry was posing for a photo-op

and gun owners saw right through it. I can walk through a field with a gun in one hand and dead bird in another, and that doesn't mean that I'm pro-gun.

All any Dem candidiate has to do is support enforcement of existing gun control. It's quite stringent as applied, but it's full of loopholes and backdoors that need to be closed. But Dems are so afraid of the gun booga-booga man that they won't even clarify that position.

I live in the midwest, I've grown up around hunters all my life (sorry to disrupt fantasies, but I don't know a single nut with a gun) and they've been hammered with the "Dems wanna take your guns" nonsense by the right for years. Funny thing is, they're all working-class, you'd think they'd vote blue, but they don't because of this 'wedge' issue, which is actually a non-starter.

These guys are also the fiercest conservationists you'll find. They're not cold-blooded killers; they love nature and respect bag limits and the laws of hunting, and they want to see our natural resources preserved for them and those that follow. Would you be willing to drop the "all guns are bad" nonsense if you could suddenly net a huge chunk of the elecorate in rural areas by saying that you support existing gun laws AND conservation?

It's this exact kind of narrow knee-jerk thinking that has us back on our heels and in the minority. We can't afford to wedge any particular voters out of the party because of personal feelings. The luxury of playing "more Democrat than thou" is gone. And these guys have NOTHING to do with the scumminess of the gun industry, so to hold them accountable is absurd.

[MrBenchley]

143. Bullshit....

"These guys are also the fiercest conservationists you'll find."
Yeah, and we had to kill that rabbit to save it.

[Hobarticus]

151. Not you again...more hateful hysterical comments?

Quite impressive. Guess having an entire sub-thread locked under oneself isn't enough for some people, they just can't take a hint.

[MrBenchley]

170. Nope, just actual fact

and well waranted scorn for a silly point of view.

P.S.: The candidates the NRA gives money to are both anti-environment and anti-labor.

[Hobarticus]

185. Nope, just Coulteresque insults, condescension and bile

It's alright, I'm sure being on the spectacularly failed side of an argument must be maddening, to the point where one has to be insulting to get attention. You must be very frustrated, and I wish you peace.

Don't bother replying, blocking. I don't watch Ann Coulter, I don't read her hateful diatribes, so I don't need yours, either. Buh-bye.

[MrBenchley]

209. Sorry, Hobart, Mannish Annie is PRO-GUN all the way

"I don't watch Ann Coulter"
LOL! But yet you got no problem peddling the exact same line of horseshit she does....and trying to blame it no somebody else....

"You must be very frustrated"
Not me...but then I don't have to peddle right wing bilge either....

[wicket]

59. Being pro-gun myself, of course I would

n/t

[lastliberalintexas]

66. I proudly did for many years- Jack Brooks

Once revered as a God in SE Texas, a man who served 40+ years in the House and chaired the Judiciary Committee until his defeat in 1994. And I (rightly or wrongly) blame the gun issue and the NRA for his defeat in 1994. That was the year of the omnibus Crime Bill, and the year that additional gun control legislation was added to the Crime Bill. Although Brooks voted against the gun control legislation in committee and in conference, REPUBLICAN Henry Hyde was the deciding vote in favor of the legislation. Thus it made its way into the final version of the Crime Bill for which Brooks voted. And for which he was beaten over the head time and time again in his campaign against Stockman. Combined with even lower than normal turnout and the failure of the NRA to endorse Brooks as they had done in the past, Brooks was beaten by that nutcase Stockman.

Brooks was soundly pro-choice, extremely labor friendly, as environmentally friendly as a politician from Cancer Alley could be, loved by minorities and supported by the NAACP, fought for impeachment of Reagan and called Ollie North a crook on national tv during the Iran Contra affiar- and was very much pro-gun.


And from many of the posts I've seen on the gun control issues in the past, I think that some DUers would actually rather have Hyde in office than Brooks, just because of the gun control issue. :crazy: I've asked that question before but never really get an answer. :shrug:



And for those of you who don't remember the flash in the Contract on America pan that was Steve Stockman, I'll just remind you that he was apparently tied in with militia nuts, as he was the Congressman who received some sort of faxed advanced notice of the OK City bombing. Gee, thanks so much for that one, NRA. :eyes:

[Tesha]

74. Gun stuff isn't a litmus test for me, but...

Gun stuff isn't a litmus test for me, but if the candidate
were severely pro-gun, I'd take a much closer look at the
rest of their positions, whereas I'd be more willing to
give the benefit of the doubt to a candidate who favors
reasonable restrictions on weapons ownership.

This is quite different than how I would react to a
candidate who was, say, anti-choice or anti-women or
anti-gay or had voted for a flag burning amendment or
for censorship, war, or domestic spying; any of those
would be frank disqualifiers for that candidate *EVER*
receiving my vote.

Tesha

[0007]

75. Why not?

[xchrom]

76. i don't want to live next door to anyone with a gun.

[derby378]

87. Even if it were me?

Let me share something about myself. I currently don't own a gun, but I used to. I'm not a convicted felon, I've never been adjudicated as insane or mentally ill, and the worst offense I was ever ticketed for was going 53 in a 35 zone. I pay my income taxes, I'm a Democratic precinct chair, and I've put in my time at Camp Casey and sent them humanitarian supplies.

So really, if I lived next to you and owned a WASR-1, would it really bother you that much? This is assuming that it's legal to own such a rifle in your city, of course.

Oh, and I'm a Quaker, too. I believe in the ideals of peace and nonviolence, but I cannot separate those ideals from the conviction that every human being deserves freedom, justice, and the right to survive.

[xchrom]

98. nope, i do not want to live next door

to people who own guns.

i'll never know you that well or trust you enough for that.

and for my money -- life being what it is -- you shouldn't trust your self that much.

but that's just me.

[derby378]

114. S'aright - I don't take it personally

:hi:

[slackmaster]

88. Odd point of view for someone displaying a rainbow flag

:shrug:

[xchrom]

99. so because i'm gay and display a rainbow flag

i should ''play'' by your rules and own a gun?

talk about odd.

[400Years]

102. because it sounds alot like what the gay haters say about you

"I don't want to live next to them thar gays."

[xchrom]

108. what ever -- i can't accidetally shoot you dead with

my gayness.

[400Years]

109. your paranoia is quite high, I feel sorry for you

I also see you don't know much about guns which pretty much explains your position.

[xchrom]

111. you would be wrong on both counts

but don't let your ignorance stand in the way.

[400Years]

115. if you say so, Tex

[xchrom]

that's funny, Butch.

[slackmaster]

112. I thought rainbow meant diversity and tolerance in general, not just gay

i should ''play'' by your rules and own a gun?

That's just plain silly.

I'm pro-CHOICE on guns.

I think you should be free to own one if you want one.

I want to be tolerated as well. The fact that I collect guns shouldn't be a reason for you not to want to live next to me.

[xchrom]

121. you have the right to own guns --

i don't have a choice not ''live'' around them.

i'm sure you're a nice person -- but i'll never know what you're like behind closed doors.

and i've been alive long enough -- as i'm sure you have -- to know that perfectly good people do dumb things -- for all their precautions and everything else.

but, rest assured, you have your guns.

[slackmaster]

123. So if someone who owns guns moves in next door to you...

...You'd move out? Or perhaps you really like your home and would invest in Kevlar panels.

You trust me (or anybody else, in general) to share the streets and highways with you, but not to have a gun near your home. The probablility of you being harmed by a neighbor with a gun is far lower than the probability that you'll get into a car crash with someone.

[xchrom]

126. you nailed it.

can't do much about cars -- right now -- energy may have the last laugh.

guns -- for my money - is something i should have some more control over.

i don't want to live near people with guns -- they go off accidentally and on purpose with far too much frequency.

people who in fits of rage go postal and shoot their spouces or co-workers probably don't see themselves as bad people.
and maybe most of the time they're not -- but it only takes that one time for a horrendous tragedy.

would i move? i may very well -- i'm that uncomfortable.

kevlar panels? what are my colour choices and can i get them distressed?

[slackmaster]

127. I'm sure you can get any color or finish you like

http://www.gaffco.com/gaffco-bullet-resistant-security-wall.htm

Consider getting radiation shielding and hermetically sealed doors and windows. Might as well be prepared for WMD attacks if you're worried about a neighbor accidentally shooting you through the walls.

:tinfoilhat:

[xchrom]

130. thanks for the info.

it's nice to see companies accomodating consumer tastes.

:*

[MrBenchley]

173. Not only that...

You should swallow right wing propaganda and out right lies, and fight for one of the scummiest industries on earth to remain deregulated, because otherwise you won't be "tolerant" enuogh to suit the sort of trigger happy bobo who posts this dishonest claptrap.</sarcasm>.

[Neil Lisst]

77. Of course, on the left, we can't win on guns ...

If we're against them, they put us on Homeland Security's list for being "anti-American," but if we are for guns, they put us on Homeland Security's list as being "threats to the government."

[ThomWV]

80. What Do You Mean? I AM A GUN LOVING DEMOCRAT!

NT

[slackmaster]

81. Not necessarily pro-gun, but pro-CHOICE on guns

Any politician who pushes too hard for gun control gets into the same jam as one who pushes for an abortion ban. Ask for too much of a concession of liberty from individuals, and they invariably hunker down and give you nothing.

Radical gun control was one factor that cost us control of the federal government in 1994. Existing law isn't broken, it just needs to be enforced effectively. Right now the Republicans are pushing to muzzle federal gun law enforcement.

[Hobarticus]

82. Very eloquent, very smart...thanks for your post. n/t

[derby378]

85. Amendment II Democrats

It's a site especially for pro-gun Democrats - progressive, moderate, and conservative alike.

http://www.a2dems.net

Give it a visit! You might find some useful stuff there.

[MercutioATC]

94. Thanks, I'll check it out.

Actually, I expected much more anti-gun sentiment here at DU. I've been happily surprised.

[Strawman]

90. We'll never out gun them

I don't think you'll ever "out gun" the Republicans or even take it off the table for those who are going to vote on that single issue. I think there's this fantasy that by opposing sensible gun restrictions all those single issue gun voters will say, "fuck it, I'm not voting for those rich assholes anymore." Not happening. That union guy in Macomb County who says he votes Republican on the gun issue might not be too fond of the rich boy Wall Street wing of the Republican party, but I think there is this entire macho, tough love identity that comes with identifying as Republican that won't go away even if we mirror the Republicans on guns. Even though he's probably a better shot and more skilled hunter than Bush (or certainly Cheney) Kerry looked silly and non-credible to these guys on the gun issue because it's not really about the policy, it's about identity.

I think the gun issue is one component of a larger cultural divide that we can only go so far in trying to breach before losing any kind of identity or credibility of our own. Some day these people will learn that their tough love daddys were just selfish fucking asshole pricks all along, then they'll need their mommy party. That's when these kinds of voters will come back.

[MercutioATC]

95. I don't think we have to "out gun them"...

...we just have to have a believable candidate who'll reframe the issue to focus on being tough on gun crime, not tough on gun owners.

I think that would be enough.

[Strawman]

107. what makes one "believable?"

Once you've supposedly taken any restrictions on gun ownership off the table, how much further do we go do to prove our gun lovin' cred to court these supposed single issue voters who won't vote for us no matter what? Do we then allow guns owners to shoot first and ask questions later like in FL?

Outside of maybe the bluest of blue communities, I don't think any Dems are getting tough on gun owners. What's so tough about a background check or a waiting period to prove you're not some nutjob? I think anyone who thinks that Dems are really being too tough on gun owners has a serious persecution complex. Like most people, I could give a damn if somebody hunts or shoots for fun or collects guns, but when they start whining about the gov't trampling on their liberties because they have to fill out some form, wait a few days, or they can't just walk into Walmart and buy an uzi, give me a break. Gun control is so loose in this country compared to everywhere else, the argument that we're too tough on gun owners is ridiculous on its face. Those people can vote Republican. Where I come from, they're typically the same middle class suburban whites that are armed because they're terrified/resentful of blacks, and they're just going to vote Republican anyway. Seriously courting these voters would require jettisoning alot more than "trigger locks" from the Democratic policy mix IMO.

You get these guys who are strong good Democrats who like to hunt or shoot or collect guns (that's all fine with me) and they bs about politics with their gun buddies who say they'd vote Dem but for the gun issue. They say they used to vote Democratic, but not anymore because of gun control. You know what? I call bullshit on those gun buddies. I suspect there's more to it and they'd say some different things to fellow Republicans. Dems are not too tough on gun owners. Republicans offer a tough love, hardass social identity with a little paranoia thrown in that these people find attractive. It's bigger than gun control policy. These people are just going to be Republicans until their identity politics take a big fat bite out of their standard of living. Then they as they sit in their basement, unemployed and broke with their arsenal of 20 rifles and handguns, they'll no longer be able to afford the satisfaction of their persecution complexes.

[cyanide]

122. I am a shooter

And the right to have a firearm is more than a hunting issue.

It is an issue where is a person who has broken no laws ,lived a responsible life is being told

what kind of firearms they are allowed to own

for what purpose they are allowed to own them - hunting only ? There are many types of shooting sports that are not involved with the hunting sport.

Target shooting
skeet / trap
self protection
Just having a collection of different types.

I feel there are plenty gun laws on the books to protect children and the Sara Brady group cares not about what they do to the Democratic Party. They have there own agenda......... and I am tired of it interfering with the Democratic agenda by preventing good folks from getting elected.

[MrBenchley]

142. By the way....

Look at the crap gun loonies DO find "believable"...and it's all freeper nonsense, or worse.

[MercutioATC]

161. I think there's some middle ground here...

Honestly, your posts seem as "loony" left as theirs seem "loony" right.

I'd really like to understand where you're coming from. Maybe we could drop the stereotypes and just discuss what you see as the isues?

[MrBenchley]

171. Hilarious...

"Maybe we could drop the stereotypes and just discuss what you see as the isues?"
Let's see....."gun rights" is basicvally right wing racism and craziness hiding under a new sheet. The creed is false from stem to stern. The gun industry itself is the scum of the earth, and the pro-gun politicans among the worst in America (Dick Cheney and Tom Delay were the last two gun owners' men of the year).

Those enough issues for you?

[MercutioATC]

193. Relax, Francis.

A "no" would have sufficed...

[MrBenchley]

212. So, I guess that concern over "issues" was horseshit

just like the rest of the "pro gun" rubbish in this thread....

By the way, I think it's a hoot that the only "pro-gun Democrat" mentioned aloud is someone routinely attacked by right wing gun nuts in the real world as anti-gun. Just as I think it's a hoot that you "pro gun democrats" began spouting right wing slander against John Kerry.

But then what about you trigger happy yobbos ISN'T hilarious?

[crankybubba]

213. thank you for the perspective from

bizzaro world. you really bring the funny here. keep it up laughs are needed. 93% would support an pro gun candidate. despite all your crying all the polls here go against you. go ahead post your own poll... lets see how it goes.

btw no answer to my offer? I guess you are all talk.(just what I expected from you)

btw how is camden(the most dangerous city in the u.s.(in your beloved gun control paradise N.J.)

[BlooInBloo]

103. False premise. Silly poll.

[VOX]

104. Yes, easily. Responsible gun ownership isn't a problem. n/t

[dchill]

105. Yes - for one reason.

When guns are outlawed, only Republicans will have guns.

[DanCa]

106. I am not a one issue voter -

I take the mean of all issues and than chose from their.
I would also like to know how far pro gun he is. I have no problem with hunters, or people who keep their guns in their car but crossfire scares the hell out me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. Against who? Anti gun Dem? A pro-gun repug? An anti-gun repug?

All other things being equal, I would vote for the anti-gun Dem.

[Beelzebud]

113. I AM a pro-gun democrat...

[cyanide]

116. If the Presidential Democratic hopeful

Is pro gun, there would be less of a battle for him to win the election. IMO this is what causes more Democrats to lose elections than anything else.

I also made a post asking this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=846962&mesg_id=846962

[JStuart]

117. 2000

was motivated in large by NRA types wanting revenge for the "assault gun ban" and other Clinton legislation.

Gore would have won in a walk with no assault gun ban.

[cyanide]

119. I agree

[Cleita]

118. Yes, it's an issue we have to compromise on right now.

In the future when enough kids get killed with careless gun ownership then maybe the same people, who are against any legislation, might see the light and bring up meaningful legislation themselves. Right now any mention of gun laws shuts up their minds as tight as a fist and you can't get anywhere with them.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

120. I wouldn't not vote for one for that reason

It's not an issue with me at this point in time.

I view gun ownership as an issue that's been taken from the hands of the Democrats and used to beat us over the head with for far too long.

It's past time we take the issue back and pistol-whip a few repugs with it. .

[4 t 4]

125. Nice!---------Guns Suck!

no_to_war_economy (720 posts) Wed Apr-05-06 02:16 PM
Original message
Baby Shower Brawl , seven-months-pregnant beaten with stick

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060405/D8GPVNK04.htm...

When the baby shower's hostess tried to intervene, Rivas began hitting some of the guests, including the 22-year-old mother-to-be, with a large stick, she said.

Velazquez fired a gun in the air, then fired it into the crowd, hitting Garcia in the stomach, according to police. Garcia, 26, was in stable condition at Baystate Medical Center. The mother-to-be was treated after the incident Saturday and released.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Image




.. one good minute will last me a whole year .. SUPERCHUNK

[MercutioATC]

196. No, PEOPLE suck...

If it wasn't a gun, it would have been a brick, or a knife, or a fist (or the stick that she was initially beaten with).

By your logic, sticks also suck...

[4 t 4]

211. It's a lot harder to kill someone with your fist---get real man!!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

129. When I lived in Oregon, I contributed regularly to Peter DeFazio

who is one of the most liberal members of Congress and regularly votes against gun control to retain the loyalty of his rural constituents.

[Nikki Stone1]

131. Absolutely. I support the whole Bill of Rights including the 2nd amendment

:kick:

[Lorax]

132. Absolutely

I am a Democrat. And a woman. And a gun owner. I know for a fact that my father votes Republican on the issue of gun control alone. I'd love for people to know that not all Democrats are anti-gun.

[Phoonzang]

144. I'm not pro-gun myself...

...but if a pro-gun dem could win the election, bring over voters, and if I agreed with him/her on other issues it'd be fine. Yes I want to take away all your guns, but it's ridiculous myth that all democrats want to do that.

[evirus]

146. im pro common sense when it comes to guns

as long as the customer has had proper background checks id say let him buy his gun, if you must limit guns, limit the ammunation sales to shooting ranges and that the customer must account for all the rounds he was given to start with

[radio4progressives]

159. exactly.. eom

[benEzra]

150. It's not so much attracting gun owners that's necessary,

it's simply necessary to STOP DRIVING THEM AWAY with threats to ban half the guns in their gun safes. It's not the 50% of gun owners who are repubs that you need to worry about so much; it's the 50% of gun owners who are Dems and indies that you need to worry about. Dropping the ban-more-guns mantra won't win over any freepers, but it would darn sure make a candidate more palatable to gun-owning dems and indies.

Fighting for bans on rifles with handgrips that stick out is the prime example of a policy that makes absolutely no sense from a crime control standpoint (only 2.8% of homicides involve rifles of ANY type, never mind how the stock is shaped), but which feeds into the Dems-want-to-take-your-guns line. My wife and I don't hunt, so we don't particularly care if we're "allowed" to own skeet shotguns or high-powered hunting rifles; we want to keep our modern-looking rifles and our 9mm handguns, thanks.

Some thoughts here, at more length:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[LSdemocrat]

156. As long as they support all current restrictions, I'm fine

[radio4progressives]

157. I'm a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights...

and I believe the 2nd amendment, the Right to keep and Bear Arms. Is just as important as any of the other amendment.

I might have a problem with semi-automatic weapons in cities, they don't belong there, i think it's perfectly reasonable to uphold city ordinances that prevent someone from walking around town with a loaded weapon..

I just hate the term "pro-gun" when we are meaning 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms.

[mondo joe]

158. Yes. More than ever. Yes.

[Scott Lee_]

160. Anybody who refuses to know how to handle a firearm....

in this period and political climate, is a rank idiot. Being trained in and possessing arms was an issue that the Founders wrote about for a REASON. If you think they overcame the forces of oppression and tyranny with dinner inviations and nicely worded pleas, you better review your history.

On top of that...how much more of your freedom and power to resist do you want to surrender to the GOP extreme right?

[newspeak]

163. I was raised around guns and know how to use them-

I just don't know how to keep people with violent tendencies from having guns. I could tell you some stories about some of these violent passing acquaintances who loved their guns. I'll tell you one event-my friend's hubby shot her and then himself in the middle of the street downtown--he'd had other instances where he threatened people, pulled a gun at a bar and when they called the police, he ran and hid in another building. There must be some requirement and responsibility to own a gun.

During the last election, I received more than one election survey call. I hadn't received that many before an election. The one survey that disturbed me, though, and I can't remember the name of the survey company, was they asked me if we owned any guns. I told them yes, and they asked what kind were they. I told them I didn't know since they were inherited and collectibles. Instead, of letting it go, they kept pushing, insisting they needed to know what type of guns. Now, what was that all about? It disturbed me.

[benEzra]

186. That guy would have been prohibited from owning a gun

I just don't know how to keep people with violent tendencies from having guns. I could tell you some stories about some of these violent passing acquaintances who loved their guns. I'll tell you one event-my friend's hubby shot her and then himself in the middle of the street downtown--he'd had other instances where he threatened people, pulled a gun at a bar and when they called the police, he ran and hid in another building. There must be some requirement and responsibility to own a gun.

That guy would have been prohibited from owning a gun under current law, had he been convicted of brandishing the gun in the bar. Or even carrying the gun into the bar. People like that often have prior convictions for things like assault or misdemeanor domestic violence that would bar them from owning a gun, for life, under the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended.

A lot of people with impulse-control disorders start smaller, with nonlethal aggression like you described. Prosecuting them would automatically bar them from owning a gun, though most violent criminals didn't obtain their weapons legally anyway.

I just don't know how to keep people with violent tendencies from having guns. I could tell you some stories about some of these violent passing acquaintances who loved their guns. I'll tell you one event-my friend's hubby shot her and then himself in the middle of the street downtown--he'd had other instances where he threatened people, pulled a gun at a bar and when they called the police, he ran and hid in another building. There must be some requirement and responsibility to own a gun.

During the last election, I received more than one election survey call. I hadn't received that many before an election. The one survey that disturbed me, though, and I can't remember the name of the survey company, was they asked me if we owned any guns. I told them yes, and they asked what kind were they. I told them I didn't know since they were inherited and collectibles. Instead, of letting it go, they kept pushing, insisting they needed to know what type of guns. Now, what was that all about? It disturbed me.

That's wierd. Are you sure it was a valid survey organization? I suppose they could have been doing a survey on gun ownership and gun-owner demographics, but I'd personally never tell a stranger in any sort of personally identifiable interaction what guns or other valuables I own and where I keep them. I think it's good to be suspicious of unsolicited requests for personal information...

"Hello, I'm doing a survey. What valuables do you own, where do you keep them, and how do you store them? Do have any cash in your house? Where do you keep your spare key? When do you next expect to be away from the house for a few hours?"

[Hekate]

166. Oh please: "rank idiot"? Some of us have no depth perception, or are...

...pacifists, or simply don't believe firearms belong in most homes. I'm two out of those three -- and I'm not a pacifist.

That said, my adult son has become a rifle owner, and is making sure he learns how to handle it. My brother bought a gun for protection after he became an independent diamond dealer who travels on business.

I strongly believe that firearm ownership needs to be licensed and regulated. We require driver's licenses of people who want to drive cars, and different types of licensing requirements kick in for heavy equipment operators, truck and bus drivers.

The real "rank idiots" are the folks who have no sense of responsibility. The US has the highest murder rate of any country in the entire world that is not engaged in civil war. That should tell you something. And the sheer tonnage of war-weaponry in civilian hands here is insane.

You want to hunt? Fine with me -- just eat what you kill. You want a gun for personal protection? Also fine -- but prove your understanding of the responsibility by training and licensing. And don't ask me to approve of owning a rocket-launcher or AK-47.

And don't call the rest of us "rank idiots" for refusing to share in either your hobby or your paranoia.

Hekate

[Scott Lee_]

197. Need some more straw for that man?

Congratulations on the phantasms you created for my points in my original post, but lets bring things back down to earth.

I spoke about the wisdom of being trained in and owning firearms, especially after what we are witnessing before our eyes in this beseiged country. It wasnt about hunting (I dont hunt). It wasnt about eating meat or what I kill (I'm a ravenous omnivore like most of humanity). It wasnt about some rolling eyed madman running up and down the street with his AK-47 out shooting anything that moves.

Now, do you have anything else to add, or shall we move on to the tin man?

[benEzra]

201. You know rocket launchers and AK-47's are VERY tightly controlled, yes?

The real "rank idiots" are the folks who have no sense of responsibility. The US has the highest murder rate of any country in the entire world that is not engaged in civil war. That should tell you something. And the sheer tonnage of war-weaponry in civilian hands here is insane.

You want to hunt? Fine with me -- just eat what you kill. You want a gun for personal protection? Also fine -- but prove your understanding of the responsibility by training and licensing. And don't ask me to approve of owning a rocket-launcher or AK-47.

You know that rocket launchers and actual AK-47's are VERY tightly controlled by Federal law, yes? Under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act (which has been on the books for, oh, 72 years now), you have to pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance in order to own something like a rocket launcher, M203-type grenade launcher, automatic weapon, sound-suppressed firearm, disguised firearm, or nonhunting firearm over .50 caliber.

And you also need to be fairly wealthy; sound suppressed firearms are relatively inexpensive (few hundred dollars for the suppressor, if you get clearance to own one), but an actual civilian-transferable AK-47 will run you $15,000, and I have seen a civilian-transferable M16A2 listed for $75,000. I have no idea what a rocket launcher would run, but the specially licensed collectors who own them are probably quite wealthy...

[MrBenchley]

174. So who are you going to plug first, Scott?

"how much more of your freedom and power to resist do you want to surrender to the GOP extreme right?"
Hell, our "pro gun democrats" want to bend over and spread 'em for that crowd. Fuck that noise.

""The Second Amendment is America's original 'Homeland Security Act,'" (Jebbo) Bush said.
As countless speakers had done throughout the four-day NRA annual meeting and exhibits, the governor also connected the NRA's support for President Bush with the liberation of the Iraqi people.
"The sound of our guns," he said, "is the sound of freedom.""

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1197396.html

It's no coincidence that the crookedest and worst administration in history is also the most gun-crazy.

[crankybubba]

187. want to get rid of guns?

start with mine benchley. I will sell them to you for fair market value
(approx 10,000 dollars u.s.) you then have a f.f.l. transfer them to you and you can do what you like to them. melt them, make lamps out of them, etc...come on put your money where your mouth is.

[crankybubba]

188. oh well

money talks and you know what walks...I see a lot of walking now.

the silence has been deafening

[Scott Lee_]

198. Quite the contrary

The Bush Reich is about as anxious for liberals to have guns as they are to go through a cholonic massage with a piece of rusty barbed wire.

In case you havent noticed, they are attacking EVERY basic freedom you have at this point...and in case you haven't noticed, the primary targets of their attacks are political opponents (I would assume you are one. So am I).

Oh they're gun crazy alright.....but only for their own. They'd love to yank yours, pull your phone and TV, send you off to Gitmo and erase your existence. If you want to help them by relenquishing one of the few remaining deterrents to a tyrant's power, be my guest.

[MrBenchley]

210. There's never been an administration as gun crazy as this....

"In case you havent noticed, they are attacking EVERY basic freedom you have at this point..."
While propping up the NRA's entirely fictional one....it ought to make you trigger happy bobos stop and think, but i'm too old and cynical to even pretend that.

"If you want to help them by relenquishing one of the few remaining deterrents to a tyrant's power"
Yeah,.. look at how that tyrant Dick Cheney reacts when confronted by gun owners...

And here's Tom Delay confronting you "freedom loving" gun owners....


Sure was impressive the way you guys faced down them tyrants, all righty. (snicker)

And by the way, where were there any gun owning democrats who said "boo" about that? The only comnment from our "pro gun democrats" was about how unfair it was to point out that they were silent as stones where other gun owners could hear them.

[crankybubba]

215. standard benchley pic post alert

hilarious. dude.. get some new ones already.

[MrBenchley]

219. Why bother with new pictures?

All the trigger happy ever have is this stale right wing horseshit....

[crankybubba]

220. suit yourself.

it is kinda predictable now. I can post some of arthur kellerman or gaston glock for you viewing pleasure.

[MrBenchley]

222. I plan to...just to hear you scream in rage

LOL!

[crankybubba]

223. no rage here...just laughter n/t

[MrBenchley]

229. It shows....

[crankybubba]

232. screaming with rage.......

Oh wait...nevermind.

Btw nebraska and kansas approved ccw recently. What say you?
screaming with rage over more ccw states yet?(;))

[slackmaster]

235. Check

(X) Post picture of Cheney holding rifle at NRA convention.
(X) Guilt by association (GOP playmates).
( ) RKBA/2A is racist.
(X) Sarcastic LOL/(snicker).
( ) Guns compensate for penile inadequacy.
( ) Citation of Brady/VPC article.
( ) Ad hominem attack on all gun owners.

[Dutch]

225. LOL...you see how much damage your little guns do the armies of the

"forces of oppression and tyranny" when they come for you...there's a reason why repukes are happy to let you have guns, you know? Apart from anything else, the majority of gun owners would probably support the oppressors.

Also...pressuring people who don't feel comfortable with handguns into owning something so dangerous is just about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

[MrBenchley]

231. Look at any on-line gun owners' forum

and the only complaint the gun loonies have about Chimpy is that he isn't enough of a tyrant and a racist to suit them...

And you'll NEVER see a comment there from even gun owning moderate, much less a "gun owning liberal"....if there are really any "gun owning liberals," then either bigotry, stupidity, and tyranny suit them, or they're too timid to speak up where their fellow gun owners can hear them.

Were there any complaints from "gun owning liberals" when the biggest gun owner group honored Cheney and Delay? The only ones I ever saw is the same sniveling you hear here in thsi thread....mainly, that it's so unfair to mention what their dishonest and dimwitted movement is REALLY all about.

[OnionPatch]

165. Yes I would

and it would be refreshing! I support responsible gun ownership, not heavy gun restrictions.

I know quite a few people who I would consider moderate, that I don't think would vote Republican if it weren't for this issue. It's not so much that they are one-issue voters. It's that they they just don't pay that much attention to politics in the first place until election day comes around but they keep hearing the "Dems-are-anti-gun" meme so often that it sticks in their heads. It's a shame the Republicans have been so successful with this frame. We definitely need to communicate the message that it's a lie. I agree, also...no tanks and quail hunts. Just straight talk.

[JNelson6563]

168. You bet! One issue voters suck.

:toast:

[LWolf]

169. It depends.

Will that pro-gun Democrat:

*support universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care?

*work to ensure fair campaigns and an accurate vote count?

*oppose NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO?

*oppose NCLB?

*Value peace and diplomacy over agression and empire building, with actions and legislation, as well as words?

*put the interests of people before the interests of corporations?

If the pro-gun Democrat stands with me on these issues, I might support him or her.

[Ioo]

181. I own 3 guns right now...

Guns are not evil

[Scott Lee_]

203. That's three more than the Rethugs want you to own

and thank you for not being blind.

[Peter Frank]

184. Your Poll Insults My Intelligence...

Your "Yes" choice is qualified by your bias, where the other choices are not. I would have voted yes, but not for your reasons.

Given the unquantifiable power grab by the current regime, I'd support a pro-gun Dem.

[MercutioATC]

195. My sincere apologies, in that case.

I thought the poll was relatively straightforward.

The "bias" was an explanation of the reason for the poll. I thought an explanation was warranted.

[SmokingJacket]

189. Maybe.

I'm not pro-gun myself, but I know lots of decent gun-toting Democrats. I wish they'd get another hobby, personally, but it's not exactly my business, and guns are not a top issue with me anyway.

[ieoeja]

192. April 5th, 2006: House Republicans Ban NRA from Politics

The linked article (see the end of this posted reply) points out that Republicans are going to frame yesterday's vote on 527 organizations as Democrats voting in opposition to campaign finance reform. Democrats should frame it as follows:


Yesterday, on a vote along almost strict party lines, Republicans in the US House of Representatives passed a bill that would ban the NRA-ILA from campaigning in elections. The 527 ban will impact many organizations, including progressive ones, from much of their current participation in the electoral process. But the NRA-ILA is the largest and most prominent 527 organization. House Republicans would surely have had the NRA, of all the organizations affected by this ban, in their thoughts when voting for this legislation.

So add a ban on NRA political activities to the Republicans failing to pass a single piece of pro-gun legislation during their control of both chambers of congress plus the White House for almost five out of the last six years. Democratic attempts to prevent criminals from purchasing firearms may slightly incovenience the vast majority of us. But at least they never tried making it illegal for the pro-gun crowd to debate the issue. Not only have Republicans taken the anti-gun stance in Washington DC to a whole new level, but they lie to us in the bargain, getting both our votes and our money.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-edt-sweet06.html

[Iniquitous Bunny]

202. Yes.

This is not much of an issue for me. Never has been. America's greatest problem has less to do with guns, but a culture of fear and acceptance of violence.

Guns are merely a tool to obtain food for many and hunting is more humane in my opinion than most of commercial agriculture. Guns are already here and cultural issues must be taken care of by other means.

[doc03]

204. Yes, and will add I wouldn't support a Democrat that

does not support the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms.

[roseBudd]

221. I would vote for a slice of baloney as long as it is a democratic slice

[loyalsister]

224. hmmmmm

It depends on the office they are running for and the details of their position.
If it was a representative in a rural area running for a district office, then I would support their position on the assumption that they were representing their constitutents.
I could go along with Howard Dean's position of regional determination.
But, I do not support candidates who make the switch against the wishes of previous supporters as a jockey for higher office. When people have invested money, time, and emotion in candidates through their rise, I think they have a responsibility to stick to some of the original positions that got them elected.
I am not so sure about an absolute "pro-gun" position. I need full context.

[Dutch]

226. Depends on their other positions.

It would count against them, but I wouldn't use it as a litmus test.

[B Calm]

227. I haven't seen a democratic politician that wasn't a pro gun

politician. I don't buy into the right-wing wedge issues, it's all a bunch of shit to get the working man to vote against his best interest and shoot himself in the foot.

[benEzra]

238. Dianne Feinstein is probably the worst

and tends to grab the most airtime.

Some legislators are just uninformed on the issue (i.e., someone who doesn't know that automatic weapons are already tightly controlled by Federal law, for example), but I think Ms. Feinstein is more of an idealogue on the gun issue.

[Slit Skirt]

228. we need to have guns

to protect ourselves from the government.....
when they start confiscating guns watch out....that will be the end.

[chicofaraby]

230. I never understood the 2nd Amendment

Until 2001.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

233. Yes, reluctantly.

I think America would clearly benefit from much stricter gun-control laws (the ones we have here in the UK seem about right to me), but sufficiently few Americans seem to agree with me that I think its an issue that needs to be shelved for now in the cause of electability.

[wiley]

234. I am a supporter of the Second Amendment

Gun dealers operating criminally is a completely different matter. The "pro-gun" crowd is not overwhelmingly supportive of criminal gun sales, and untrained and unlicensed gun owners, however. The NRA was once an excellent gun safety and education organization. Now it's a corporatocracy controlled guild of gun manufacturers whose sole interest is profit. They'll do anything to make it. If politicians would all agree that the second amendment gives citizens the right to own guns, Democrats would wipe up on this issue, as some are. Doesn't mean YOU have to go out and get a gun.

No, Rocket Launchers are not guns.

[Speck Tater]

236. What, you want all the guns to be in the hands of Republicans only?

I don't think so. As a gun-supporting Democrat I would certainly vote for another of my kind.

[jzodda]

239. I would yes

I don't like the Dems policy of one size fits all with regards to gun control. I fully support almost any and all gun control measures that New York City wants to employ, but I would be against the same measures being applied to rural, upstate areas where people go to hunt and target shoot. I have enjoyed target shooting since I was a little kid and I am as progessive as they come.

We give the Repukes this issue b/c Dems too typically want the same rules for urban areas apply to rural areas. That makes little sense as far as I am concerned and concedes the whole issue to the Repukes who then hammer it to their red state friends.

[genieroze]

240. I personally don't care for guns but I support the second amendment.