Be honest. Is there room for gun supporters & pro lifers in the Dem party?

[ourbluenation]

I say yes. I don't own a gun, nor am I into hunting, but I respect the fact that there are democrats in this country who share the hunting tradition within families and cultures (my brother in law being one). I also am pro-choice but I appreciate the moral conflict abortion raises for people of faith who are democrats (my mother being one). I worry that if too many of us cannot respect these people and come up with compromises, then our "Big Tent" is gunna shrink, let alone grow bigger.

My biggest frustration with the right wing extremists is that they want to shove their views down everyone else's throat. But honestly, I have to check myself from time to time to make sure I'm not doing the same thing.

[Dawgs]

1. Isn't everyone against abortion?

People that are pro-choice do not support abortion, they support the right of the women to choose.

[MercutioATC]

2. Exactly!

I don't know a single person who thinks abortion is a good thing. I know plenty who think the decision should be the woman's, not the government's.

[ourbluenation]

8. no shit. but can you appreciate how people struggle with it? eom

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. Struggle with the concept of "choice"?

Or struggle with the idea of having a legal abortion?

I know a whole lot of women who've had abortions, pre- and post-Roe, and not one ever struggled with the idea, nor did one have any regrets.

Not one.

[ourbluenation]

17. I have friends like the ones you mention and some who do regret it.

Look - I'm pro choice. All I'm saying is that I know dems who are pro life and anti choice (my mother). She ALWAYS votes for democrats, but struggles with voting for them each and every time becasue most are pro-choice.

How does the dem party address people like her? How does it address people who belong to the NRA? I can tell you that from where I sit, there are lefties who make people like my mother feel stupid for her views. There are lefties who look down there noses at my gun owning brother in law. It's subtle, but it's there and it turns a lot of people off.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. We agree, then....

See my post below titled "Eternal vigilance".

There really is more to being a Democrat than Roe v. Wade. I've been part of that battle since the sixties, and, I tell you, there really are ways to deal with it that could make the Democrats the total Party Of Everyone's Choice, and that is precisely why the pro-choice people in PA have been supporting - in a big way - Casey for the Santorum Senate seat (I'm pretty sure Casey will take it - with ease), even though he's anti-choice.

What he is, and his record demonstrates it, though, is pro-law, and pro-following the law, and he will not vote for judges who have a history of not approving of Roe v. Wade.

That's real grassroots planning and working where the power truly lies - with the people who choose the judges, not with the judges themselves.

That said, there are far more important things than this issue. I'm so weary of how we've allowed ourselves to be backed into the "anti-life" corner. While our infrastructure crumbles, 42,000,000 people don't have health care, our civil liberties are being disappeared with impunity, Roe v. Wafe is hardly as significant as other crises that currently beset our country.

[napi21]

83. I like the "Pro Law" argument, but I don't see it working with the

righties. Most of THEM want legislators & judges who will CHANGE that law! That's why they were soo against Meyers. They weren't sure she would overturn Roe, so now we have Alito. Actually THATS what scares me about him. I've been listening to the hearing and his responses. Although it's still very hard to tell, he doesn't sound like a radical extremist today, but if the righties are so sure of him, I'm very afraid of him.

I wish your argument of pro law would work like you said, but I just don't see it happening.

[FreedomAngel82]

99. It's my understanding with them

from talking to some people that they think if Roe v Wade is overturn women will have to stop having abortions because it would be illegal and thus they would be "saving the babies" as they say. That's their number one purpose. But it won't mean anything if they over turn Roe v Wade. It'll be the EXACT same. Women will still have abortions but in back alley's. With Roe v Wade it protects the women who do need an abortion such as with rape, incest or a medical life vs death issue.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

116. Wish in one hand, as they say.....

but I say "Watch Pennsylvania," since it's the first place this tactic is seriously being used, and let's see what happens.

After all, the Democrats are the minority, and that's when we've got all the freedom in the world - as in, "nothing left to lose."

By the way, your position here is in direct contrast to what the OP and I are supporting - which is that we Democrats are a party of inclusion. Of course there are people who hold different views than we do, but that's what dissent is about, and my posture now is that you certainly are welcome to your narrow view of who should be part of our Party, but their opinions and beliefs are just as valid as yours and mine, and there must be a compromise worked out.

By the way, I'm not talking about Alito at all. He's not part of the future of the Democratic party, which is what we were talking about.
The Democrats have already allowed Alito to become a sure thing, I'm afraid.

Read the OP again, and you might think differently about inclusion.

[Withywindle]

139. I'm all about inclusion and free speech and debate...

disagreeing freely, etc., but when you ask me to actually VOTE for a politician who's anti-choice, well....



no. that's one chad that's staying virgin like Mary. Ain't gonna happen. EVER.

[hollowdweller]

143. I saw Howard Dean address this in a speech last night in Charleston WV

He said that the Government needed to get out of peoples personal lives.

He said that it should be up to the people living in the states to determine what sort of gun laws they had not the federal gov't.

He said that while the Democratic party was not for the Gov't getting into peoples personal lives between a woman and her doctor (ie abortion) that most democrats felt that we had far too many abortions in the US and were committed to reduce them. However rather than laws preventing it he said that using the example of the Clinton years (when we increased federal support for working families such as min wage increase, expanding prenatal and child health care programs, providing for greater family and medical leave, and expanded the earned income tax credit) and the abortion rate went down, that we could continue this sort of family and community support and this would reduce the rate better than intrusive restrictions.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

144. Understand, though,

Casey's position and history, and you realize your stance, if applied across the board, will put Roe v. Wade in fatal jeopardy. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote about Casey and his dedication to upholding the law - stare decisis, and all that.

That the big mistake Democrats are now trying to correct - they've been aiming at the wrong target.

It's time for some truly sophisticated and courageous tactics on the part of our Party, since the old ways have brought us here, a desolate and pathetic place.

So, as I said, you might want to study the Casey action plan, see that all the pro-choice groups are supporting his candidacy, and consider the consequences of what your failure to see consequences might bring.

I'm supporting Casey, even though I no longer live in PA.

[insane_cratic_gal]

51. Easy enough they only need decide

what one person does with their personal life is their choice. The choice is between them and their maker. She need not worry that people are going to the 2nd isle in the food section to get an abortion or anything.

She need only to decide that she wouldn't have one. That's it.. it's as simple as that. I support gay marriage even though if I didn't? I wouldn't worry about a gay woman marrying me, being a hetero.

People choose to be for or against something, if you make the choice to just allow people the right to decide for themselves, all the other bullshit and RW talking points simply are not relevant anymore.

[FreedomAngel82]

102. Exactly right

It's just like with gay marriage. Just because I'm not gay and I'm a Christian and wouldn't follow that law doesn't mean I should stop it because of someone else. The governments role isn't to enforce religious ideologue on people as stated in the first amendment with freedom of and from religion. If you're against gay marriage just because of religious purposes, in my opinion, you're going against the first amendment. It's like with abortion too. Religion should have no effect on the law. In our country we have no national religion so in ten or twenty years from now the popular religion could be the pagans or wiccans. Would the conservative Christians like them to be forcing their religion into the law? Of course not.

[FreedomAngel82]

97. Here's what I would tell her

Don't like abortion? Google why women have abortions and show her how it is connected to the economy. Look at Planned Parenthood and their top ten reason's why women have abortions. Only three reason's can not be fixed with societies help (rape, incest or a medical issue) but all other reasons can be fixed. If you don't personally like abortion just don't have one but don't pretend to be a medical doctor and tell other women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Every person has their own life and decisions to make and personal reasons for something. There are other purposes to vote for democrats for. Democrats value and respect a woman's privacy and that's the big thing with Roe v Wade.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

117. Or.....

Don't like abortion?

Don't have one.

[Bluerthanblue]

48. choice is always a struggle- and

anyone who never has regrets, either didn't have to 'decide' anything- or isn't being honest with you- or themselves-
Regrets don't mean they'd necessiarily do things differently, given the exact same circumstances- but rather there were aspects of the decision that they wish they didn't have to go through, or have happen.
I agree with the notion that everyone should be free to make their own decisions, especially since they are the ones who are most impacted by them- when we are discussing abortion specifically.
And I don't think that heaping blame, guilt, remorse, or judgement on a person REGARDLESS of their decision is a very compassionate, or acceptable response for anyone outside the situation to have- But people aren't very nice to each other much of the time.

As for guns, my family has several- passed from generation to generation. Not used for hunting since my fathers youth- not used for agression- not kept loaded. Shot only as 'target practice' on very rare occasions. Respect for the potential danger of ALL guns (never even DARE point a toy gun at someone was the rule in my family- It would get you a beating from my father, and be the end of the toy)- Just as he was raised- just as my sons have learned- There will never be 'paintball' guns here- I've killed one animal with a gun- and it was an experience I will forever remember- AND regret- I shot the fox because it was ruthlessly attacking our livestock. It started with chickens- and no matter how tight the fence, shutting them up at night etc. the fox found away to outsmart us- even killing and dragging off a goose half again as heavy as it was. We don't keep any livestock here anymore- garden crops are easier to protect with less lethal methods-

And I'm also not opposed to having rules in place about guns. Assault weapons aren't much good for target practice- or hunting. While the 'right' to own one might be argued, why would the need or desire be so overwhelming as to allow their sale, and potential mis-use?? There may be a good reason- i haven't heard it yet-

So, yes, I DO believe that there is room for pro-life beliefs, and gun ownership rights within the Democratic party- I don't see any true 'incompatapility'. Extreemsim might dictate otherwise- but extreemism in any group, usually doesn't represent the majority view.

[benEzra]

146. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, and hunting

Regarding hunting--only about 20% of gun owners are hunters; the rest of us, like my wife and I, own guns for defensive purposes and recreational target shooting.

And I'm also not opposed to having rules in place about guns. Assault weapons aren't much good for target practice- or hunting. While the 'right' to own one might be argued, why would the need or desire be so overwhelming as to allow their sale, and potential mis-use?? There may be a good reason- i haven't heard it yet

"Assault weapon" is merely a scary label for all civilian firearms that hold 11 or more rounds, and civilian rifles and shotguns with protruding handgrips. Military AK-47's and Uzi's and such (what some people think the term covers) are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and have nothing to do with the "assault weapon" issue.

Here's my Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle--five round magazine, wooden stock straight out of the late 1800's, chambered for the LEAST powerful of all centerfire rifle cartridges, marketed as an all-purpose farm/ranch utility rifle, suitable for hunting small game up to coyotes:



Here's the SAME gun with a more modern-looking black plastic stock:



THAT is the difference between an "assault weapon" and a "hunting rifle."

My wife and I own several so-called "assault weapons," one of which is the black-stocked mini-14 above. Another is my wife's 9mm Glock handgun, one of the types of gun most affected by the 1994 "assault weapon" bait-and-switch.

As an avid target shooter, I can tell you that the guns the prohibitionists label "assault weapons" are among the BEST suited for recreational target shooting. The ergonomics are better than 1800's style straight stocks, and most are rather low-powered so they don't kick as much as a hunting rifle would. None fire any faster than any other self-loading civilian rifle, or the pistol in your local police officer's holster.

[Bluerthanblue]

148. I'm not ignorant about

what constitutes an assault weapon, nor am I ignorant of target shooting.

My neighbor just bought himself a crank operated ex military machine gun complete with a tri-pod- it was a couple of thousand dollars, and yeah, we live in the boonies, but what is the point?

My fathers carbine from WWII is technically an assault weapon. Some people are VERY responsible gun owners- the majority are. I believe restricting the sale of assault weapons, requiring gun-show checks, isn't oppressive- or would actually infringe on anyones freedom.

[benEzra]

150. Confiscating half our family's guns because Dianne Feinstein thinks

protruding handgrips look too modern is MOST DEFINITELY an infringement of my right to own the civilian firearm of my choice.

We're not talking about machine guns here; we're talking about civilian handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

I support a great deal of gun regulation--most of which is already law--but banning 11-round handguns and rifles with modern-looking grips is NOT acceptable to me at all.

[Bluerthanblue]

160. i'm not in disagreement

with you-

Actually, a simple derringer is far more of a threat, because it 'looks' like a toy and is easy to conceal- and has killed many a person despite it's small caliber-

I'm not against you, believe me--

[MercutioATC]

71. It depends how you frame the issue. If you see abortion as murder,

"choice" takes on a whole different meaning. I don't agree with them, but I understand their position.

[AZBlue]

155. Absolutely!

In the end you have to look at the bigger picture - we can't have back-alley abortions ever again in this nation. And, a woman has the right to choose. But I, for one, would like to see education and counseling to reduce the number of abortions. It is the woman's choice, but it's not an easy one - I have friends who've had them and went through hell. Still question their decisions to this day. And, I do understand being against it in principle - I personally couldn't have one without extenuating circumstances (ie, rape, health reasons, etc). But, it just boils down to an individual's right over their body and the desire not to see women and children die in dirty "operating" rooms. That has to override any opposition (as it does with your mom).

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. Amen.

No one likes abortion, but everyone likes to have a choice.

[lapislzi]

15. Um, no

Sometimes abortion is the best option under the circumstances. Only a woman and her doctor can know that, however.

[slackmaster]

19. Everyone has a slightly different take on it

I've never been a party to an abortion, and if I get my GF pregnant I'll view it as nature's way of telling me it's time to become a father.

I believe a late-term fetus deserves protection. I don't feel the same way about a fertilized egg. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I think it's placed correctly now.

[LincolnMcGrath]

23. Well Said

:yourock:

[Loonman]

3. Right wingers frame both issues dishonestly

If abortion was not the only option in some cases, 100% of people would not get them, subsequently, they misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Getting a firearms permit is a privilege, not right, other wise, let's pass out weapons at mental hospitals.

[stanwyck]

29. exactly.

thanks, Loonman.
The right misrepresents Democrats on both issues. I support responsible gun ownership. I did NOT support the Bush administration's letting the ban on assault weapons lapse. Thousands of law enforcement officials stand with me on that issue. Pro-life Dems may feel outnumbered...but we welcome their presence and input. I would hope that Dems would be more accepting of pro-lifers than Republicans are of pro-choice conservatives.

[MercutioATC]

73. I disagree with your 2nd Amendment statement.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." clearly makes it a "right" IMO.

However, most gun nuts intentionally ignore the first 13 words of the Amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

I'm not in opposition to private gun ownership. I just don't think the 2nd Amendment applies to private citizens who are not part of "a well regulated militia".

[Sparkman]

104. The right of the people to keep...is not dependant on "A well reg militia"

BECAUSE...VERY few of the early settlers were part of any militia, well regulated or not. So we have the RIGHT, not the license by regulated body, to arm ourselves.
AND that's been the interpretation since before the Nation's founding.

[MercutioATC]

105. I understand that interpretation. I just don't agree with it.

And yes, I know the Supreme Court disagrees with me, too.

[Sparkman]

111. If ALL guns were eliminated, would you allow bows & arrows, or mace?

[MercutioATC]

137. I've already said that I don't have a problem with private gun ownership.

Who's talking about eliminating all guns?

[Betsy Ross]

4. Many Dems support the issues of which you ask.

Hunters and gun collectors included. I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice which I think is the position of many here.

[seabeyond]

5. i am all for life. oh, you are talking about people that are anti choice

big difference. sure there is room for people that are anti choice, but dont expect the people that are prochoice to back you. not gonna happen. gonna be an area we disagree on.

[Bill McBlueState]

6. we have to find new frames

If "gun supporters" means people who "share the hunting tradition within families and cultures" as you say, then of course there's room. If "gun supporters" means people who want the unrestricted right to use any weapon they can obtain, there might be problems.

We need to use language that distinguishes between the two extremes of gun users.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. "Eternal vigiliance,"

said Wendell Phillips, "is the price of liberty."

And we are duty-bound to scrutinize ourselves, our motives, and our goals even more carefully than we attempt to divine them in those we call our foes.

It's a great big Democratic dancefloor, and I hope there's room for everyone on it.

[papau]

11. yes

:-)

[TheFarseer]

12. I say yes

Are guns really a big issue? I'm not even convinced it's a democrats vs. republicans argument. It might be more like smoking. Abortion is a more touchy issue. I don't think there is much room for fundies who deny a woman has ANY say in her medical decisions and thinks gays should die and burn in hell. If you're talking about people who want to limit abortion, then I think that is more than workable.

[melody]

13. It depends

I have no problem with guns. I don't think the problem is the guns, I think it's more complex than that. I think
most people want some regulation of them. I certainly do. I have never owned a gun nor would I, but I guess there are people who live in rural areas who need them and other people for their own reasons. So long as it isn't hurting someone else (and they can demonstrate they're not likely to do this before purchasing one), it's not a problem for me.

The problem with the anti-abortion crowd is exactly what you state -- no one is going to force someone to have an abortion who doesn't want one. If someone tried, I'd be the first online to fight the perpetrator. The anti-abortion crowd wants to force us NOT to have an abortion. They want the REST of us to share their own narrow, orthodox views of life. If they're sitting around fixated on how to control somebody else's uterus, the issue ISN'T life, but a neurotic need to control other people.

Your mother may be very nice, but people who want to force their religious views (and that's what being anti-abortion is... it's arbitrarily shoving one's religious views don't someone else's throat) on others aren't going to find a ready home in a party that is based on the values of a democratic republic.

[ourbluenation]

36. My mother is very nice and she doesn't want to force her views on others

She's pro-life, rabidly anti poverty, believes gov't "is the people" and has a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves a la "rising tides lift all boats" hence she's a democrat. I suspect she's not alone. I appreciate her vote and her views, even if I don't agree with them all.

[me b zola]

109. My mother was strongly anti-abortion, anti-choice--until I became pregnant

in high school. Then she came to me and told me that although her faith made her not believe in abortion, I was going to have one (whether I liked it or not!) It was the first time that I stood up to my parents and I told them that I would not abort my baby. I am strongly pro-choice.

My fundie-lite MIL in a discussion with me told me that she is pro-choice. When I was later discussing this with Mr. Zola, he said that I must have misunderstood, because his mother would not be in favor of abortions. It took me a while to explain to him why most woman and many men are pro-choice regardless of their religious beliefs.

When women are put in the postition of carrying an unwanted pregnany or loving a woman who is carrying an unwanted pregnacy, they understand the wisdom of CHOICE. When a woman's daughter is impregnated before she has had the chance to begin life--look out, most parents will support the life and liberty of the living, almost adult daughter before they will a clump of cells.

[Withywindle]

140. Very good post! Thank you!

Several years ago, I found out that my younger cousin had had an abortion. (I wish I could've been there for her, but she turned to the people near her geographically...can't blame her). She was surprised that it was our 70-something Catholic great-aunt who was most supportive and pragmatic.

A (my cousin) said, "I felt she really valued ME first even though her religion didn't support it, she was willing to accept what I needed. She said she would pray for me even though she didn't think what I was doing was all that terrible, considering. She gave me the feeling she'd been there. I don't know if she has or not and I didn't ask, but that feeling is what counted."

[AZBlue]

157. Two excellent posts! Thank you for sharing your stories!

This is why in another thread that asked what if Alito is confirmed and RvW is overturned I said women wouldn't let it happen or if it did, there'd be a revolution. Not a bloody one obviously but an intellectual and social one. Put to that test, very few women would actually support overturning it. There's a minority that will support a total ban but most women would feel in their gut that's wrong. They would think of themselves, their mothers, their daughters, relatives, friends...they just couldn't do that.

[melody]

110. As along as she respects my pro-choice views

I have no problem with her.

I don't like guns, but I respect the rights of gun owners. Just so, I'm not going to force anyone to have an abortion, so long as they don't try to force me to NOT have one (bad grammar but my point).

[Left Is Write]

121. What do you mean when you describe your mother as "pro-life"?

In the political arena, that generally means someone who is opposed to legal abortion. If your mother would like to see abortion made illegal again, then, no, I don't think that particular view fits with Democratic party.

I do recognize that not every member of a political party has to agree with every tenet of that party, but I would not be able to support a political candidate who endorsed the pro-life political agenda.

Being against abortion personally for oneself is an entirely different matter. That's covered under the "choice" umbrella of pro-choice.

[fasttense]

65. Tom Delay had a little scam going in Saipan where women were

forced to have abortions. It is routine in the Northern Mariana Islands (a UN trust territory administered by the US) for management to coerce women who become pregnant into having abortions so they can keep their jobs. Seems if you make something in Saipan, you can legally call it made in the US. While most US laws apply to the Northern Mariana Islands, there are a few key exceptions that Tom Delay made sure were not changed. One is labor laws. Seems you can bring in women from China, Philippines and Indonesia, force them to work in sweat shop conditions and force them to have abortions.

I'll bet a lot of so called "pro-lifers" would be all for abortions if employers and large corporations demanded them from women so they can keep their jobs.

This is why I'm pro choice. No one, not even Tom Delay, has the right to force abortions on women and yet republicans do it without second thought.

So if the repukes can support so call pro-life when in actuality they are anti-choice than why can't Democratic politicians support pro-lifers too?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Sure. But, I don't vote for them.

If the Democratic candidate wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with the NRA and the pro-preggers, he/she can look elsewhere for votes.

[danalytical]

37. Why?

I don't own a gun, but I live in a suburb. If I lived in the country I would own a gun. I would probably use it for target practice, protection, maybe even hunting (god forbid). I have no problem with guns as long as the person owning it is responsible. I would rather have an armed population than a non armed population. You never know what the future may bring.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. I believe in strict gun-control and registration of all firearms.

I live in the country and have never had the need for a firearm. I've lived in the city and have never had the need for a firearm (and, I dealt with various lunatics and criminals).

Of course, I have a bias. My father was killed by a legally owned firearm.

As for an "armed population" and not knowing "what the future will bring", what do you envision in the future that would entail the use of firearms? At what point in the tyranny do you take up arms? When the government spies on, imprisons, tortures, it's citizens? When the tyranny invades or threatens other countries? When the government commits genocide?

Got bad news for you. All the above is happening now.

[danalytical]

72. Your personal experience

is a tragedy. But it doesn't allow you the right to restrict everyone else's freedom's. Accidents happen, and so do intentional killings. But I am more concerned about losing freedom than I am about accidents. In the case of an intentional killing using a firearm, the attacker could just as easily kill with a knife or a rock. A gun is a tool that can be used correctly or incorrectly.

I don't like instruments of death, but I also don't like restrictions on my freedom or my neighbors freedom.

Let's say you lived in New Orleans when Katrina hit. Let's also say it was even worse than it already was. Imagine people willing to kill each other for a drink of clean water or a bite to eat. What happens when someone tries to steal your daughter's last cup of water and he has a knife? Or imagine there is a famine and the only food available you have to grow or hunt. I'm just saying, you never know what the future could bring. Yes armed revolt is also a possibility, what is the trigger? That I don't know.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. So, what do you have against registration?

Your comment about knives and rocks is naive at best. Having done my share of toting various guns in the military, I'd much rather be attacked by someone with a knife or rock, and figure my chances of surviving would be a helluva lot better than being shot by someone.

Had my father been attacked with a knife or rock, my bet is that he would've remained alive and probably not injured.

You can come up with all kinds of scenarios where the use of a gun would be justifiable (maybe). Why not throw in an escaped elephant or space aliens? The chances of any of the hypotheticals you mentioned happening to you, are, to say the least, highly unlikely. It's kind of like moving into a mineshaft to avoid being hit by a meteorite, or wearing your waders to bed in case of a flood. Both could happen. One never knows what the future holds.

But, have no fear, the chances of this country ever giving up it's love affair with guns and violence is, to say the least, remote.

[danalytical]

124. Registration?

Who said anything about registration? Oh wait YOU did, not me. I never said I would be against registration. Although there are arguments against it, I'm not sure where I would stand on that issue. On the other hand, hurricane Katrina DID put people in dire situations where a gun might have come in handy. You can downplay the likelyhood of chaos in a major american city or the necessity of owning a rifle in Wyoming's bear country. But that doesn't make you right, it just means you don't care for that argument.

I think you are attacking the tool and not the actual problem. Guns aren't the problem, it's criminals and accidents that are the problems. As well as to loose gun controls and availability. I think you are arguing against a fictional representation of what a gun rights advocate is, it's a delusional way to debate. I am a Democrat and I am quite liberal, but I also don't think the government should be telling me or any responsible person what they can own. You might as well advocate for more drug controls or television censorship. It's the same concept. Limited freedoms.

BTW, I don't think being attacked with a knife by someone meaning to kill you is going to result in just an "injury". Most likely that lunatic will carve you up even if you are quite capable. In the movies you can smack the knife away from his hand, in reality you usually lose a finger. Now, where can I go skeet shotting this weekend???

[jody]

16. A better question would be "Is there room for those who would ban guns in

the Dem party?"

The 2004 Democratic Party platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

The Democratic Party now recognizes that the majority of those who call themselves Democrats and Independent voters support the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Those who would ban handguns or all firearms need to recognize that they are a minority in the Democratic Party.

[ourbluenation]

18. but there a pretty vocal minority who drown out the message. eom.

[jody]

57. Yes, they are very vocal and they mislead many voters to believe our

party opposes the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA).

Clinton and Gore have both stated that the perception that we Dems oppose RKBA has caused many Dem candidates to lose elections.

[ourbluenation]

59. Exactly! Thank you...eom

[Carni]

79. I agree there is a lot of misconception about the gun issue

Over the years I have had several people who appear to be *independents who have voted repuke because of the gun thing...they know I am a Dem voter and I cannot tell you how many times I have received lectures about being *anti-gun*

I am not anti-gun, I think they are fine if there is some sort of regulation---
I don't think that people need to own fifty of them and fancy themselves a militia... but reasonable, regulated, responsible gun ownership does not bother me.

I have countered with that very statement and gets looks of confusion--there is a big conception out there that all Democrats are 100% against gun ownrship and I don't think that is the case.

[jody]

84. That's why our platform now says we support the Second Amendment right

to own firearms.

[Carni]

132. I didn't even know that

Thanks for the info.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

62. Actually

I think it is more the other way around. It is the Republicans and the Republican-owned media that keep yelling that we want to take all guns away from everybody when in fact we do not. It has been the majority Democrat position for a long time to provide reasonable regulation of firearms. You just wouldn't know it from listening to our media.

[jody]

70. "from listening to our media" and Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy! n/t

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

86. Schumer, Feinstein and Kennedy

Clearly define the Democratic party. :eyes:

I know less about Schumer and Kennedy's position on the issue, but regardless what Feinstein's personal belief is about the issue (I don't know, though she used to be a gun owner herself), she spends her energy fighting for regulations on gun ownership and enforcement of existing regulations instead of a ban.

[jody]

87. Feinstein is known for "If I had the votes, I would ban all guns". n/t

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

92. But she doesn't

So she works for the compromise position of having a well-regulated militia, which is my point. She doesn't go around pushing for a complete ban on guns, she fights for regulations on gun ownership. People like to take that one quote from her and present it like that's her agenda when it isn't.

[jody]

93. She has consistently supported banning all handguns. Handguns are

the choice of professionals like law enforcement officers and criminals for self defense.

Handguns are also the most effective/efficient tool for self-defense and the choice of law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their inalienable right to defend self and property.

Feinstein never misses a chance on national TV to advocate banning handguns. That's her right but she should say that her position is not the position of the Democratic Party.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

120. Not all handguns

The famous quote everyone seems to use is:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.– Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995.

But she was just talking about certain classes of guns like assault weapons, not all guns. It's a classic example of taking the quote out of context so it can be twisted and manipulated.

Now it is possible that she indeed does go on TV frequently to advocate the banning of all handguns, since I don't watch TV I have no way of checking that. I'm limited to internet news and I've not managed to find any reputable quotes of hers that indicate that that is her goal or desire. If you have any links I'd like to see them.

[jody]

122. Sorry, Feinstein does support banning all handguns. When she was mayor

of San Francisco, she tried to ban handguns for personal use. She failed because state law prevented her from banning them.

As a high profile senator, she has supported the Violence Policy Center (VPC) and their goal is to ban all handguns, see "Why America Needs to Ban Handguns".

I've never read a statement by Feinstein that said she rejected VPC's goal of banning handguns.

[hogwyld]

24. I'm one of the minority

I abhor any and all firearms, and will continue to work at more restrictive gun laws, and their enforcement. I constantly write to my senators (Feinstein, Boxer) and my congresswoman. Does that mean that the Democratic party doesn't want me or my vote?

[jody]

50. I don't believe the Dem Party requires each member to support every

plank in the platform, e.g. Senator Dianne Feinstein obviously does not support the Dem Platform position on the Second Amendment but she is still a prominent Democrat.

[EFerrari]

27. Is that true? Is there a souce I can read? n/t

[davepc]

45. Yes it's true.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D2004

[EFerrari]

64. Thank you..

[Walt Starr]

20. Yes to gun rights, no to anti-choice n/t

[JNelson6563]

21. You betch!

I don't care if you're pro-life, as long as you aren't anti-choice. As for guns, here in northern Michigan, sure, you bet! Next year's District Dinner is going to be a Big Game dinner and we're going to raffle off a hunting rifle.

:toast:

Julie

[purduejake]

22. Yes.

I have no problems with collectors, hunters, and other responsible citizens having and using guns. However, I do believe in gun control. I am pro-life and pro-choice, like most.

[ThoughtCriminal]

25. GOP = More Abortions

Rates go up when Republican are in control. The reasons are pretty simple - their social and economic policies lead to conditions that increase unwanted pregnancies.

[EFerrari]

26. People can have all the moral conflicts about abortion that they want.

They just can't have them in my body. Period.

[Arkansas Granny]

28. Absolutely. I don't own a gun, but I support the right of anyone to

legally and responsibly own firearms. As far as abortion, I can respect anyone who opposes abortion as long as they allow others to make their own decisions on the matter.

[jsamuel]

30. pro-life is such a mysterious term

for example, Carter is pro-life, but he is the good type of pro-life. He says he believes abortion is wrong, but that it shouldn't be outlawed for the sake of the woman. That is how 95% of Democrats feel. That is the problem with "pro-life" and "pro-choice". I like the term "no-choice" because that is really what Democrats don't support. I don't think there is much room in the Democratic party for "no-choice" supporters.

Pro/anti gun is fine. I myself used to be anti-gun, but since seeing this administration in action and seeing how hunters really feel about guns and animals, I am now pro-gun.

[Jayhawk Lib]

31. What would happen if Roe V Wade went away.

My understanding if it did go away abortion would still not be illegal but it would be up to the individual states to approve or disapprove it for their state. Being as how the majority of people approve of a womans right to choose most states would be forced to make it legal.

I very well could be wrong on this but I am sure some of you out there understand the situation better than I.

[Bridget Burke]

40. An Indiana legislator just fiiled a bill to make abortion illegal.

The bill by Rep. Troy Woodruff of Vincennes would change Indiana's feticide law to make it a Class C felony, punishable with a two- to eight-year prison sentence, to perform an abortion. The only exception would be when carrying a pregnancy to term would pose a "substantial permanent impairment of the life or physical health of the pregnant woman."

Woodruff said he filed the bill Wednesday in part because there will be a new U.S. Supreme Court and a state must pass a law and then appeal it to the highest court to see if the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling would stand.

www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/13557744.htm

That's the Test Case--a chance for Justice Alito to prove himself.

Even one state making abortion illegal would be a great burden to the women of that state. They would be forced to leate the state--no matter their family or job obligations. Plus travel expense & perhaps a motel--since so many states have "waiting periods" of 24 hours between the first clinic visit & the procedure. Then the woman would have to rush back home right after the abortion.

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. What happens to the poor woman in a state where abortion is illegal?

Where does she go? I'll tell you where, a back alley somewhere and a dirty coat hanger is used to abort the fetus or she goes to some so-called "doctor" and gets hacked up. Better yet, she can do her own abortion at home with that coat hanger. WE WILL NOT GO BACK THERE.

This would all hinge on the evoting machines too. IF the repukes are thrown out on their asses and the evoting machines are destroyed and never used, then States rights may prevail, but not until. With evoting machines, repukes will ALWAYS get what they want.

[JerseygirlCT]

103. Women in some states (generally the ones where abortion

is less restricted now) would still have the option to end their pregnancy.

Women in many others would not.

Even now, women in some states have their rights so strictly curtailed due to ridiculous hoops and restrictions that abortion is all but unavailable.

I don't think that's right.

If there is an inherent right to privacy in our constitution, if a woman is in command of her own body, then that right must be made clear at the federal level.

Are women in South Dakota less deserving of the right to make personal medical choices than women in NY?

[slackmaster]

33. What does it mean to not be a "gun supporter"?

I have discussed firearms with hundreds of people, and only a few have said they don't support at least some people having guns.

Nearly everyone agrees that military people, police, and people in professions that require weapons should have them.

Most of us agree that hunting is a valid reason for a person to own a firearm.

Most of us see nothing wrong with target shooting, or owning a gun for it's value as a collectable.

Most of us agree that at least some ordinary citizens have valid reasons to have a gun for self-defense.

We get into trouble when we start questioning each others' motives without a concrete reason, or trying to declare what another person "needs".

[WI_DEM]

34. yes

The Democratic party, contrary to what the Republicans say do not want to take guns away from the average hunter--but we surely do want to do something to combat weaponds which are used on the streets everyday and lead to countless deaths.

And I think we do have room in our big tent for real pro-lifers. People who personally oppose abortion but are not fanatics. People who also oppose the death penalty and are so they are at least consistent. People who may support adoption as an alternative and then believe that we shouldn't then cut programs for children.

[benEzra]

147. The vast majority of gun owners aren't hunters. (n/t)

[gratuitous]

35. Flip the question

Is there room among the gun supporters and pro-lifers for an honest discussion of differences? In my experience, not really. I don't want to take anyone's gun away unless they demonstrate an inability to handle it responsibly (like, say, their kid shoots one of the neighbor's kids), and I surely don't want to force anyone to have an abortion.

But is there room in the head of a dedicated NRA member for reasonable restrictions on gun proliferation in our society? Is there room in the head of an anti-choicer to allow for the vagaries of real life, and that an abortion can be the only reasonable alternative for a person? If gun supporters and pro lifers want to have an open discussion that includes the possibility of less than absolute solutions, then I'm all for it. But in my experience, the gun nuts go straight to full confiscation, and the pro-lifers go straight to legitimizing terrorist tactics, and there's no retreat, no middle ground, no basis for discussion.

Why would I want to deal with such fanatics, or lend credence to their extreme positions by making room for them in the Democratic party?

[ourbluenation]

43. Sometimes the answer is yes.

"But is there room in the head of a dedicated NRA member for reasonable restrictions on gun proliferation in our society?"

Yes, my brother in law is one. He's not fanatical at all.

[jody]

66. DU has several "dedicated NRA members" and so does the Dem Party. n/t

[rman]

38. If they don't mind gun regulation and identify as anti-abortion rights,

then perhaps.

[wellstone dem]

39. I shouldn't have read this thread

they always make me sad. I am what is traditionally known as "pro-life", but I rarely have the opportunity to vote for an anti-abortion candidate. That's because I'm really pro-life. I know that abortions go down when Democrats are in office. I know that many women really don't have a choice without adequate medical and child care. And as the adoptive mother of a child who spent more than 4 years in foster care, I put my actions where my mouth is. If the Democratic Party kicked me out, I would have no where to go. So if the question is, does the Democratic Party have room for one issue voters, maybe not. But if there is room for people who honestly differ on an issue that tears many of us apart, then yes. And I'll be there as I've been since age 12, volunteering, donating, and voting. Please don't kick me out.

[DanCa]

41. How would you label me on theses issues?

anti choice is not anti abortion. It's an attempt by this administration to blend protestant and catholic religion into one, and establish a national church within our government As far as abortion goes I am pro neutreal on the subject I wont invovlve my in the life and death decisions of others. Especially since I dont have a medical degree.
As far as a guns go I am for background checks and I am against automatic weapons crossfire scares the hell out of me. But I will defend anyones right to carry a gun in thier car, house or hunt. But personally I wouldnt own one.

[benEzra]

152. I'd label you pro-gun...

gun owners (even the NRA) are OK with restrictions on automatic weapons, which have been VERY tightly controlled since 1934 under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act.

You don't have to be a gun owner to be pro-choice on the gun issue, any more than you have to be female to be pro-choice on abortion.

[stray cat]

42. I hope so otherwise we will probably never win natl elections.

[warrens]

44. I'm not anti-gun

Anti-gun show, perhaps, but I believe I have a right to own whatever weapons I want. Particularly since they're talking about using the armed forces domestically. An unarmed populace is helpless.

[Doctor_J]

46. Pro-lifers? Or do you mean anti-choicers?

I have no problems with anyone who wants to own firearms, or anyone who chooses not to have an abortion. The RW wants to enact inot law their religious beliefs. That where they lose me.

[sinkingfeeling]

47. I'd say yes to both as long as you don't seek to enact laws that

require me to have a gun or restrict my right to an abortion.

[necso]

52. I'm strongly pro-gun,

because I believe that every citizen has to (and should) be prepared to defend him-or-her-self... even, in the last resort, against the power of the state turned autocratic. But I can live with sensible limits on what I can own, and I am in favor of it being illegal for certain violent or violence-disposed lunatics and criminals to buy guns. They will probably be able to get their hands on guns anyway, but why make it easy -- and why give it a stamp of approval. Indeed, let us make every reasonable effort to end illegal gun sales.

And I believe that there should be no restrictions on a woman's right to choose -- beyond that (I do not know exactly where to draw) line beyond which one becomes a human and a citizen. This is some advanced date certainly, but there is one... I suppose. And never should a woman's life or health be endangered because she must be (become) a baby-carrying machine.

However, I am prepared to listen to people spout all sorts of things -- as long as they won't (and don't) act in a way I disapprove of. However, I'd prefer it if such people (those who I think are just talking against what I believe -- but aren't really going to act) never came to a position where they could act -- because they might betray me. But then again, so might anyone. All I can try to do is judge the person, and if this person says he is against something -- but won't act against it -- decide if I believe him or her... or not.

However, others might be influenced by such talk to really act (on it) -- and this I will have to counter -- so I would prefer someone of truly like beliefs.

But I'll take any reliable ally that I can get, that is, if he can get elected -- as opposed to a fellow thinker who cannot.

[Ezlivin]

90. As a Life Member of the NRA

I don't agree with many of the positions of the NRA. They seem to side too readily with gun manufacturers and don't see the value in licensing gun owners.

I own a Sig-Sauer P226 and enjoy shooting it at the range. My wife joins me and we have great fun. Both of us were trained in the military and know how to properly handle a firearm. We have no children, own only one gun and shoot it for fun. We don't lie awake at night in fear of our lives and neither of us ever expects to shoot anything living.

However, I'm all for very stringent licensing requirements: Annual tests, a photo ID, etc. I have no problem with limiting guns to qualified individuals.

That we'll need our guns to overthrow the government if it gets out of hand is a ludicrous idea. We are so out-gunned by the government it's not even funny.

[necso]

95. "Ludicrous", perhaps.

But much rests on exactly how you fight. Straight-up fight, no chance, I agree.

However, use your strengths, exploit his weaknesses, wait for your moment -- who can say with absolute certainty. But yeah, even then I wouldn't care to wager on it.

But our founding fathers would have approved of the sentiment, I think.

And that's exactly what it is.

A sentiment... a feeling... a belief.

Not a plan of action.

[UrbScotty]

54. Yes! I should know. I'm pro-life.

Pro-wildlife, pro-healthcare, pro-education, pro-environment...

I'm sick and tired of hearing the phrase 'pro-life' used to describe people who are against women's rights!

[Bluerthanblue]

82. I am too- but

the issue really isn't life- at least as I've come to learn it-

I believe the issue is more along the lines of "pro-having to give birth if you are pregnant"- then you are ON YER OWN babe, don't come lookin for any government hand outs- you made that bed, you can die in it-

Pro LIFE- cannot be honestly claimed without recognizing our own responsibility to ensure that ALL beings have the necessities of life, without strings- It is a very radical position, but I believe, also the only position that has the potential to truly lessen violence, suffering, agression and crime in this world-

People usually steal, kill, hate, envy, and control others, because of some NEED of their own- If our needs were met, at least our very basic ones- then it would leave alot more energy, time and freedom to address life from a healthier, and clear-eyed perspective.

Not nirvana- but better than the hell we live in now.


I'm tired of the words Pro-life used as an excuse to hold power over the lives of others-
:silly:

[jarab]

55. (Sidebar) My best friend - a Libertarian -

but really a * voter because there is no real choice in that Libertarian Party, said to me a while back:
"I wish I could be a Democrat!" - and it was heartfelt.

That told me - and I have pondered it - that his liberal gun ownership and strict belief in the 2nd - was all between him and us.
I think there are many more like him, but I don't know how far they'd compromise on a platform.
Gun ownership is not negotiable for those like him, and everything else IS. BTW, he despises * now, too, but he'd stay home on election day before he'd vote for, in his words, "a Schumer, Kennedy, or Feinstein".
ALL because of OUR gun positions - ONLY!! And, he's still my best friend.

(Gun owners in many cases are strict constitutionists, and this admin's indiscretions - crimes - have torn them even moreso.)

...O...

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

75. Would your Libertarian friend accept regulations?

Would your Libertarian friend accept regulations to try and reduce the guns being acquired by criminals? What about regulations that require proof of ability to safely handle the gun? Regulations for a short waiting period so people can't buy a gun simply to commit a crime of passion? If he is a strict constitutionist then what does the phrase "well-regulated" mean to him? The position of the majority of Democrats is to allow regulated possession of firearms, which is entirely consistent with a strict reading of the second amendment. He may disagree on which regulations we should have, but to adopt the Republican position of allowing completely unregulated possession of firearms is not what the second amendment states.

[jarab]

94. I'll try to answer for him best I can ...

"75. Would your Libertarian friend accept regulations?...."


The easy ones:
Safety courses for sure.
A background check and waiting period (conditional) to discover criminal possessions - yes.

Well-regulated to him means what the NRA has said, not the DU chant. BTW, he no longer supports the NRA as a member because they "caved in" unnecessarily on some issue(s) the specifics of which I do not recall.
Although he has a dealer's license, I think he's cognizant that the average person has no need for machine guns, and I'm not sure how flexible he may be about specific things like the 50cal, etc.
I've heard him argue that should registration be incorporated now, within a decade most law abiding gun owners would be known by name and address to the government, while the throwaway gun owners would not be known.... A government intrusion thing.

It is my own opinion that many of the gun owners "might" be more receptive to background checks and even waiting periods if there were some way to use them ONLY to intercept criminals; thereafter NO record would exist for purchasers doing so legally.
That's asking a lot to trust the government.

...O...

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

106. Thanks for the answers

Well-regulated to him means what the NRA has said, not the DU chant.

I guess I'm not familiar with the regulations that the NRA supports. I've always seen them fighting any and all regulations.

I've heard him argue that should registration be incorporated now, within a decade most law abiding gun owners would be known by name and address to the government, while the throwaway gun owners would not be known.... A government intrusion thing.

The government already knows most law abiding US citizens by name and address for many different reasons: taxes, car registration, property ownership, postal service, etc... Adding this to the list seems like a lot less government intrusion than them listening in to your phone conversations without any oversight or warrant. This seems to be more about paranoia than about anything related to constitutional rights.

[danalytical]

129. I would agree with his position

I have som elibertarian tendencies that make me balk at some things some Democrats say, but overwhelmingly I agree with the Democrats and almost never agree with Republicans. I also fear for government intrusion into my life, but I would certainly want any purchaser of a gun to be required to submit to a background check. Any violent crime or history of drug addiction (not drug use) should disqualify you. Then that information should be discarded. Imagine the government becomes truly an enemy, if they know exactly who has a gun and where they live, those people would be the first to be rounded up. I'm not comfortable with that. Most countries have a history of a tyranical government somewhere in their past, chances are the USA will also someday face that scenario. As long as there is a large armed population, they can't really clamp down. Look what they face in Iraq, which has a much smaller population with far land mass.

[ourbluenation]

56. Here's my point. Neither side can have it all their own way.

When we start talking compromise on some of these hot issues, our tent will grow. That's all. When we have a candidate who can express the message of tolerance that most of you all have said today, without being distracted by refuting the false claims of those of the right, the dems tent will grow. Kerry wasn't very good at this, Clinton was great at this.

Please remember this in the primaries.

Also, I have personally seen lefties on other boards who come across as snobs when it comes to guns and abortion. They are so busy making their point that they come across as intolerant...do you know what I mean? I just wanna slap these people with some common sense - they turn people off. They wanna shove their views down people's throats...sound familiar?

[w13rd0]

58. Define "pro gun". Define "pro life".

I don't accept "their" definitions.

[-..__...]

60. I'm both pro RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Firearms), and Pro- Choice.

My view on both issues basically comes down to... if an individual or group, isn't shitting in your yard, then leave them the fuck alone.

WRT to firearms ownership... I've been an avid gun owner/collector/shooter for over 30 years (never had any interest in hunting).

In all those years I've neither shot anyone (either accidentally or on purpose), nor have I ever had a desire to shoot anyone.

I'm also a long time member of the NRA (yeah I know, boo/hissss...). The critics of my choice to join the NRA can save their comments and accusations for someone else or for some other time. I have no intention of canceling my membership anytime soon.

I'm all to well aware that there are many people who have no interest in owning firearms or participating in shooting sports. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is
people who would try to greatly diminish/restrict/or eliminate my right to own and use firearms.

WRT to the issue of abortion... I believe in the same rule of minding ones own business.

I fully support a womans right to choose under all circumstances and conditions with one exception.
I don't have a problem with parental consent and/or notification laws. My belief in that has nothing to do with the right to choose or the right to life. Abortion is a medical procedure with risks. A parent should have the right to know or give permission for any procedure that could put risk their childs health at risk... be it getting a tattoo, piercing or abortion.

Don't like firearms? Don't own one.

Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

69. There are some important differences between those two

My preference would be for no one to have firearms except for certain limited exceptions, i.e. police and hunting. However, I accept the official platform of reasonable regulation of firearms that allows normal citizens to own handguns.

However, there is an important difference between being pro-choice for abortions and pro-choice for firearms. If someone gets an abortion, it does not affect me in any way. If someone has a gun it does affect me. I don't want to get into a discussion of statistics about how gun-ownership increases or reduces crime of various types, but if I see someone carrying a gun around I feel uncomfortable. I don't know anything about this person. Do they have a temper, are they reckless with its use putting me at an increased risk of an accident, are they sober and mentally stable? They are carrying around something that could easily be used to kill me, while the abortion that woman over there got isn't contagious and can't be used against me in any way that I can think of. Merely possessing a firearm to me is threatening. At the very least I'd like there to be some (enforced) regulation so I can believe that they know how to handle it, don't have a history of using it to commit crimes, etc...

[benEzra]

149. To carry a firearm, one generally has to be licensed...

and getting a license generally requires a background check, you go down to the police department to get fingerprinted, the FBI runs your prints, there is a mental records check, there is often a training requirement, in most states you have to pass a test on self-defense law and demonstrate competent shooting, etc. etc. etc.

My wife and I have both obtained licenses to carry a firearm. I have been licensed in both Florida and NC, and am currently authorized to carry in ~31 states.

People like my wife and I, who shell out the $$$, time, and commitment to get licensed to carry a firearm, certainly pose no risk to you. Criminals, on the other hand, have never needed a license to carry a gun...they do all the time, and FWIW it's your local criminal with the .38 in his waistband, rather than the law-abiding people licensed to carry, that I'd spend my time worrying about.

[mattomjoe]

61. I think the question worth exploring is, if someone is politcally

pro-choice, but personally pro-life, what are the reasons for such a personal stance? Are they for the same reason(s) that people are pro-life politically? It seems to me that, in a issue as hotly debated and deeply divided as this one, there DOES seem to be an area of common ground (despite the conclusions made from it). I'm just surprised no one seems to ever talk about this.

[shance]

63. Are you asking if there is room for Republican infiltrators in our party?

Because this is what they have been doing for years to dillute our unity, power and strength.

Nothing new - but its more underhanded strategizing by those in the Republican party because they can't win on their own merits and or platforms because so many of them are racist, essentially white supremist, and in favor of oppressing women and maintaining their second class citizenship.

[ourbluenation]

67. No that's NOT what I'm asking at all. Did you not read my original post?

My mother is a life long dem and anti-choice.
My Brother in law is a life long Dem and and an NRA member.

I can assure you, they are not republican infiltrators!!!!

I believe there is room for them in the dem party, big time. I wish the party leaders did a better job at reaching out to people like them.

[jody]

68. Do you mean that those who support RKBA are " Republican infiltrators"?

RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms)

[shance]

77. No, not at all and Im glad you made that distinction.

Im talking more about those who like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman who marginalize and I believe intentionally weaken our party so that we cannot confront the necessary issues this country needs to confront.


I believe the underlying issue surrounding it is right wing white male supremecy which has been threatened by the progress of everyone else who doe not share their love for right wing white male domination and suppression for more than a century.

[jody]

78. Are RKBA supporters "right wing white male supremacists"? n/t

[dsc]

81. Lieberman is both pro gun control and pro choice

Miller was pro choice as well (though he was pro gun rights). In other words, both men are pro choice and only one disagreed with you on guns.

[shance]

118. How about all that gun control for Lieberman in Iraq?

He sure is pulling out his six shooters and raring to go there? Don't tell me they are not the same. OF COURSE THEY ARE.

They all result in thousands of death of innocent victims and destruction.

Is he supporting "gun control" or women's rights to choose there?

If he cared about women's rights he wouldn't support conservative candidates that DON'T support the rights of women in any way.

Its all connected.

He can call himself a Democrat all he wants. Its a bald faced lie.

His actions, or lack thereof are what define the truth.

[dsc]

130. actually I have no idea what we are doing in Iraq in regards

to abortion but as to gun control we actually have tried to institute that there. I have no idea what conservative candidates you are referring to.

[fujiyama]

74. Yes to both

Regarding gun control, I don't think it should be stressed on a federal level. There are plenty of people out there that own guns we can appeal to. I think we can and should do more to appeal to them.

As for abortion, I say, if ya don't like it, don't get one. I understand the moral dilemna but still, I just don't see why government should have a say in what a woman does with a woman's body.

[mitchtv]

76. Pro life? we are all pro life

Now ANTI-CHOICE,I have no use for that. It's called mind your own business. We got Guns

[JerseygirlCT]

80. Well, I don't mind gun-lovers who understand that

sensible regulation isn't an unacceptable infringement of their rights.

Likewise, I don't mind anyone who is uncomfortable with abortion so long as they don't advocate the government taking that very personal decision away from any woman. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice. One is a personal decision; the other is a political one.

[slackmaster]

85. Your language is both vague and inflammatory - let me explain

The term "gun-lover" is clearly an insult. By using that kind of language you are guilty of the same kind of rhetoric as the gun rights supporters who use terms like "gun-grabbing monkey" to describe those who advocate stricter gun controls.

sensible regulation isn't an unacceptable infringement of their rights.

That is argumentum ad hominem and poisoning the well.

You have just labelled anyone who doesn't support whatever it is you would like to see enacted (which you haven't even specified), as an un-sensible or unreasonable person.

Please be very specific about what changes in the law you would like to see. What you have presented here is going to automatically make people stop listening to you.

[jody]

88. You rock.

:thumbsup:

[JerseygirlCT]

100. My apologies

To be honest, the entire question of guns is rather outside my experience. I will never own, see no need to own one. I don't want one in my home. I don't hunt, and will never have any interest in doing so. So I plead ignorance here, and I didn't intend to offend.

I do, however, think sales ought to be regulated. I don't think just anyone should be able to purchase a gun or however many guns he/she chooses. My personal preference is for far fewer of the things in circulation, honestly. I think the idea that one can go to a gun show and thereby avoid regulations is a little more than silly.

I think the comparision to driving and licensing has been made often. I don't buy the argument that because some read a right to own guns into the constitution that any restrictions on that ownership are not valid, including testing, licensing and limits on the types or number of guns. I read the 2nd ammendment differently. But I certainly see room for those of differing views on that matter in our party.

[Sparkman]

107. question...IF you could save the life of a child by shooting an asailant..

would you accept a gun, point and shoot it to protect life? See what I'm getting at? I'm hoping that you're never in a bad situation like that, but many chose to ally that fear with arms possession.
"a gun in the hand is better that a cop on the phone", type of thinking.

[JerseygirlCT]

135. Well, I'd reject the premise.

I remember reading that the gun in your house is statistically more likely to end up being the gun pointed at you. And that's not even addressing people killed or hurt by gun accidents.

No, no thanks for me. I'd just assume avoid the nasty things as much as humanly possible! That's my personal opinion, of course.

[benEzra]

162. You're probably recalling media accounts of Kellerman et al,

I remember reading that the gun in your house is statistically more likely to end up being the gun pointed at you. And that's not even addressing people killed or hurt by gun accidents.

You're probably recalling media accounts of Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986 (314:1557-60), an old study that has been widely discredited.

Of homicides in which the victim was a gun owner, Kellerman counted these as if the homeowner's gun were at fault, but in every instance the gun used was the criminal's gun, brought into the house by the criminal with lethal intent. He also didn't control for the possibility that people who are in greater danger of being murdered are probably more likely to purchase a gun than those in the control group, though I'm not sure how one would quantify this, nor did he control for understatement of gun ownership by the control group (which given the area and political climate almost certainly would have skewed his results).

The vast majority of the deaths Kellerman et al cite are suicides, not homicides or accidents. I'm not at risk for suicide, so there goes most of the alleged risk. Accidental gun deaths are statistically insignificant, so much so that I doubt he even recorded any (current rate is ~600/year nationwide for 80+ million gun owners, and this figure does not exclude accidents by gun-owning criminals, a fact which tends to skew the perceived risk higher).

Worse, the "43 times more likely to kill a family member than defend against an intruder" statistic from Kellerman et al excluded all defensive gun uses that didn't result in the death of the criminal, which acts systemically to hugely underestimate the number of actual defensive uses. If the intended victim pulled a gun and the criminal fled, it didn't count; if the victim fired a warning shot and the criminal fled, it didn't count; if the victim shot the criminal, halting the attack, but the criminal survived, it didn't count; and if the criminal were shot and killed, and was known to the victim, IIRC it was counted in the "shooting a friend or family member" category.

Certainly one can quibble about the Lott et al data, and the Gary Kleck et al data on defensive gun uses, but if you exclude suicides I don't think there is any peer-reviewed data anywhere that suggests a gun in the home is a significant danger to you or your family.

The National Crime Victimization Survey did show that intended crime victims who fought back with a gun were less likely to be injured than victims who used any other method of defense (including nonresistant compliance), and ALL of the injuries to gun-using intended victims occurred before the victim accessed the gun, but the sample size in that study was extremely small since the study was not designed to assess the efficacy of defensive gun use.

FWIW, there are a lot of systemic problems with most of the medical literature on guns, with egregious procedural blunders and idiotic misunderstandings of technical issues appearing fairly regularly in the peer-reviewed medical literature. For an overview of the disconnect between the conclusions of peer-reviewed medical researchers on guns vs. the conclusions of peer-reviewed criminologists on guns, see Kates et al, "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?" Tenn. L. Rev. 1994 (61:513-596). The types of egregious blunders and biases pointed out in this article are the reason Congress yanked gun funding from the CDC back in the '90's. If you can find it on the web, the transcript of the committee hearing in which the head of the CDC was confronted over the issue of "advocacy studies" on this issue is also rather enlightening.

It is vital that if anyone chooses to own a gun, they should get training and store the gun responsibly. My wife and I (both gun owners) have both taken that responsibility seriously.

[slackmaster]

114. Gun sales ARE regulated

I think the idea that one can go to a gun show and thereby avoid regulations is a little more than silly.

It would be silly if that was the case, but it's not.

All laws that apply at a gun store apply at a gun show.

[JerseygirlCT]

136. Well

From the Brady Campaign site:

Federal law concerning gun sales and ownership is a crazy-quilt of legislation; because of the efforts of the gun lobby to prevent sensible gun laws at the national level, what little law there is tends to cover few areas comprehensively. States were forced to enact their own laws to fill in the gaps. Due to the poorly-written laws on the books, a category known as "private sellers" exists, where anyone who wants to sell guns from his or her "private collection" need not conduct background checks, keep any records or find out if the buyer is qualified or knowledgeable about firearms in any way.

In addition, some promoters or firearms dealers sponsor "gun shows," where legitimate federal firearms dealers (Federal Firearms Licensees or FFL's) sell guns side by side with the so-called private sellers. In most states, FFL's at these events must comply with federal regulations regarding background checks and sales. The private sellers are under no such restrictions. Thus, the gun show becomes a place where those planning to use guns in crime are able to meet unlicensed sellers and avoid the very laws meant to cut down on gun violence.

[slackmaster]

145. Typical slanted language from the Brady Campaign

Due to the poorly-written laws on the books, a category known as "private sellers" exists...

"Private sellers" means "any non-licensed person (someone who doesn't have a Federal Firearms License or FFL) who has one or more used guns that he or she wishes to liquidate". The federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate intrastate sales of personal property. And hey, the Brady Campaign people helped write those "poorly-written laws on the books", so their whining rights are diminished.

...where anyone who wants to sell guns from his or her "private collection" need not conduct background checks, keep any records or find out if the buyer is qualified or knowledgeable about firearms in any way.

But anyone who sells a gun to a prohibited person has committed a federal crime. Federal law also clearly states that it's illegal to engage in a business of selling guns without a license.

The problem is there is no easy way for a non-licensee, or even for someone like me who has a type 03 FFL (Collector of Curios and Relics) to conduct a background check. The 1994 Brady Law which created a computer system called NICS for checking backgrounds of prospective gun buyers, specifically prohibits the use of that system by anyone who isn't a gun dealer, i.e. someone with a type 01 FFL. If that system was available to non-licensees, it would be POSSIBLE for people selling used guns to check the backgrounds of buyers. Right now, there is no reasonable way for a non-licensee to do that.

In addition, some promoters or firearms dealers sponsor "gun shows," where legitimate federal firearms dealers (Federal Firearms Licensees or FFL's) sell guns side by side with the so-called private sellers.

Gun shows have been around longer than the Brady Law or even the Gun Control Act of 1968, which created the FFL system.

FFL's at these events must comply with federal regulations regarding background checks and sales. The private sellers are under no such restrictions.

That's correct. And a private seller who is NOT at a gun show is not subject to regulation either. In most states people sell guns from their own homes, advertising them in newspaper classified ads, post notes in laundromats, by word of mouth, etc. At least at a gun show, where buyers and sellers are concentrated in one place, it's possible for police to watch for known violent offenders and other high-risk people.

[JerseygirlCT]

153. To your second point

"The problem is there is no easy way for a non-licensee, or even for someone like me who has a type 03 FFL (Collector of Curios and Relics) to conduct a background check. The 1994 Brady Law which created a computer system called NICS for checking backgrounds of prospective gun buyers, specifically prohibits the use of that system by anyone who isn't a gun dealer, i.e. someone with a type 01 FFL. If that system was available to non-licensees, it would be POSSIBLE for people selling used guns to check the backgrounds of buyers. Right now, there is no reasonable way for a non-licensee to do that."

Seems to me on a quick reading that it would make more sense to have a national database and some sort of dated certificate -- and that it ought to be the buyer's responsibility to obtain such a thing... then no certification, no gun. But perhaps I'm missing something.

[JerseygirlCT]

154. And to the last point

"FFL's at these events must comply with federal regulations regarding background checks and sales. The private sellers are under no such restrictions.

That's correct. And a private seller who is NOT at a gun show is not subject to regulation either. In most states people sell guns from their own homes, advertising them in newspaper classified ads, post notes in laundromats, by word of mouth, etc. At least at a gun show, where buyers and sellers are concentrated in one place, it's possible for police to watch for known violent offenders and other high-risk people."

So why is this? It seems a huge loophole in the laws. You need a license to sell a gun, unless you don't have a license, in which case you can sell the gun. How do we close that loophole?

[slackmaster]

159. Fed. gov. lacks authority to regulate all intrastate private transfers

You simply can't get around it. The federal government's power is derived from the Constitution. Granting it the authority to regulate intrastate private sales of used personal property would require a major amendment.

Here's something you might find intersting. Many proposals have been floated to "close the gun show loophole" and regulate the private transfers that occur at gun shows. That requires some kind of definition of "gun show" that puts an event into the realm of interstate commerce, which is the basis of all federal gun laws.

In 1998 the Clinton Administration reviewed the issue and issued this report: http://www.atf.gov/pub/treas_pub/gun_show.pdf

It includes some discussion of proposals to regulate activity at gun shows. Here is a snippet from the recommendations:

1. Define “gun show” to include specialized gun events, as well as flea markets and
other markets outside of licensed firearms shops at which 50 or more firearms, in
total, are offered for sale by 2 or more persons....

The obvious unintended consequence would be to create a proliferation of short-duration events at which one person offers up to 49 guns for sale, followed immediately by another similar event. Or events at which antique furniture or porcelain figurines are the main item offered for sale, and a few vendors also happen to have a gun or three they want to get rid of. IOW anything to skirt around it can and will surely happen. I think the best course of action is to aggressively enforce the prohibitions against convicted felons, etc. owning guns. Focus on the known-bad people.

Read and enjoy. I find this topic very interesting.

[AGKISTRODON]

161. "Sensible regulation"?

"Sensible regulation", or nonsensical, over regulation? Who's senses are we discussing?
You can't just say "sensible regulation", and leave it there, well, you can, but it gets no one anywhere.
B-)

[slackmaster]

89. Common denominator is personal freedom, self-determination

We should return to the libertarian roots of our party and embrace individual liberty.

I mean lower case 'l', not the "Republicans who smoke weed" model of the Libertarian Party.

I'm pro-choice and pro-gun. Holding both those values makes perfect sense to me.

[cascadiance]

98. Many folks I know think we may NEED arms soon...

... if things get uglier in this country than they are now. I'm starting to see that logic myself now...

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can excercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

[JerseygirlCT]

101. What do you mean by "pro-gun"?

Honestly? What are the parameters of that?

No restrictions, some restrictions...

[slackmaster]

115. I'm generally OK with the restrictions we have now

I'd like to see more consistency among the states, and the National Instant Check System (NICS) used in most states to check the background of a gun buyer, should be available to people who sell used guns to other individuals. (In most states that type of transaction is not subject to regulation.)

[cascadiance]

127. I don't think I'm ever "pro-gun"...

as if it is some sort of religion the way it is with some "collectors", etc.

But I can see the value of having means of defending oneself where needed, if society starts to break down when the "gestapo" takes over trying to police us instead of the cops we have there now. Before I hadn't thought the government could get this close to dictatorial tyranny, and in earlier days wanted to have more restrictions on guns to keep the bad elements from having us be less safe. However, with us on the precipice now, gun control is the least of my concerns, and I'm more than happy to join forces where this is a major issue for them, as long as they're willing to work hard with me on preserving things like civil liberties, government transparency, etc. that I feel are far more important now in defending our rights with.

[FreedomAngel82]

96. Of course

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. I remember on this other board someone asked me if I supported people owning guns and I said yes and they were surprised. I guess they believed the BS about us taking their guns away. I personally am pro-life but I am pro-choice as well because it's not my body, not my decision and just not my life. I'm not a doctor and I believe that whether or not a woman should have an abortion is a personal and private choice. Whatever happened to the republicans being for privacy? I personally at this moment of time wouldn't have an abortion but I can't speak for someone else who might need one for whatever purpose. And where it concerns guns all I ask is you be responsible. If something happens and a child gets a gun and kills someone else with the gun the person who owns the gun should be responsible as well and if they have kids they should be responsible for what happens with the gun. That's all I ask with gun owners: personal responsibility. I used to be really big on gun control but now I know that there's only so much one person can do and all I ask now is personal responsibility. If you personally choose to have gun control on your gun than that's your decision. I've come to realize that people kill people (you have to pull the trigger for it to kill or hurt you).

[Radical Activist]

108. Congress spends over 95% of its time on the budget and economic issues

Why should we let these two issues that rarely change destroy the Democratic coalition?

[Sparkman]

113. Also,since neither law is likely to be changed soon, why fight over them!

Good assessment of a potentially divisive set of issues.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. Absolutely. I'd rather there wasn't room for those who think there isn't.

[BurtWorm]

119. Yes on guns. Depends on what is meant by "pro-lifers."

Anyone who supports using extreme measures to end legal abortion in the US ought to be left outside in the frigid cold, as far as I'm concerned. I don't mind including people who feel a need to call themselves "pro life" (as meaningless as such a self-description is).

[Time for change]

123. I agree

Not long ago I posted a thread calling for more tolerance for the "pro-life" point of view (though I am pro-choice) and for more reasoned debate on the subject, and I got flamed for it more than anything I have ever posted on DU. I can't find it now because the advanced search function is down.

Recommended.

[KyuzoGator]

125. The key is to not let the GOP focus on divisive issues.

Howard Dean has it right, we need to minimize the debate on stupid non-issues that affect a small number of Americans and focus on the ones that affect us ALL like:

- Health care
- Social Security
- Budget deficits and servicing the national debt
- Job creation
- Preserving the environment
- GETTING OFF MIDEAST OIL

Look, I'm pro-gun and I really don't like the idea of abortions of convenience (although I understand you can't take choice away). That said, Democrats need to stop falling into the trap of bogging down with issues that don't really matter in the big picture.

[Odin2005]

126. I hate it when Repuks call us Anti-Gun.

I grew up in a rural area and I hunt. I have no problem with people keeping guns for hunting and self defenseas long as there are proper regulations to make sure those gun owners know what they are doing, and making sure criminals and terrorists can't get guns. According to the gun-nuts' logic, wanting people to have driver's licenses and wanting cars to have seatbelts and airbags makes you anti-driving. :crazy:

[More Than A Feeling]

128. There is definitely a place for gun supporters

I think most people understand that there is a big difference between hunters and people who would like everyone to have the machine gun or rocket launcher of their choice.

There is definitely room for people who see reducing the number of abortions (through making them less necessary) as a worthy public policy goal (I happen to be one of them). It can be done as a side effect of things that many progressives support, like comprehensive sex-ed, guaranteed pre- and post-natal care for women, reform of the state adoption systems, and so on.

There is no room for people who want as their primary political goal to outlaw abortion, or burden it with so many restrictions it becomes meaningless. I don't think they understand exactly what would have to be done in order to enforce such things. There would have to be a national registry of pregnancies, the police would have to investigate every miscarriage, and both the woman and the doctor would have to be punished. It would be a police state aimed solely at women, and that is something that must not come to pass, and certainly not be supported within the Democratic Party.

[Iris]

131. Sure as long as none of them tries to force me to give birth at gun point.

[Matariki]

133. "pro-life" is a misnomer

[ThomWV]

134. I'd bet at least 75% of Democrats own guns.

[Withywindle]

138. Well, I'll put it this way...

...I grew up in the South in a gun-owning family (not by choice, my dad was law enforcement). Now I live in a big Northern city ravaged by gun violence. I can see both sides of that issue. To me, it's something reasonable people can disagree on reasonably, and so to me, it's OK if the Dem party has the "big tent" on that issue. I have an opinion, but it isn't a strong one, and it's in the "compromise" range.

I don't own a gun. I don't care to right now, but if I felt more threatened and more inclined to think it would be useful to me, I would get one and I would not have a moral freakout over the mere fact of owning one.

I DO, however, "own" a uterus also, and they're a lot more unpredictable than guns! (Yes, I've had training in basic safety with both :D)

I take the abortion issue MUCH more personally--it's MY LIFE that's being so abstractly debated. In theory I'm open to "pro-life" folks who are otherwise progressive calling themselves Democrats if they want. They might be great on other issues, and if so, fine, I don't have to agree with everyone on everything, really. I don't think they're horrible. I understand their moral and rational qualms. I just think they're wrongwrongwrong, and if they're male it's especially repugnant to me, because they have zero chance of ever facing a life-changing and dangerous situation that could happen to ME any day.

But I have never voted for a "pro-life" pol in my 36 years, and I never will. If both candidates in any given election are both anti-choice, I will not vote in that race. If the Repub is pro-choice and the Democrat is pro-zygote-at-the-expense-of-the-already-existing-human-being to the point where s/he actually wants to legally or practically overturn women's choices over our own bodies, well....ouch, fuck, goddamn, I'm a yellow dog but I ain't no martyr! This IS a dealbreaker.

Going back to guns, for me, voting for a pol who is against full reproductive choice would be like being so lefty-PC-liberal-guilt-ridden I would HAND the poor underprivileged mugger the gun to shoot me with and then telling him I deserve it, the 20 bucks in my purse is token of his spiritual superiority, he too is a human being deserving of his pursuit of happiness through crack, and that means so much more than my individual choice to go on living, blah blah, after all, I'm only a woman...


Fuck that noise.

[Mutley]

141. I think that's the key.

"My biggest frustration with the right wing extremists is that they want to shove their views down everyone else's throat. But honestly, I have to check myself from time to time to make sure I'm not doing the same thing."

There's a lot of room in the Dem party for people who share different beliefs, but Dems don't (or shouldn't) try to force others to share those beliefs. There are always exceptions of course, but I think Dems are more willing to compromise on issues such as gun control and abortion then the right wing is. We try to understand that not everyone lives and thinks the way we do, and it's important to us that everyone's view is represented as much as possible. The right wingers get in power, and suddenly no one's opinion matters but theirs.

[BiggJawn]

142. No. Nor for Atheists, either.

Yeah, the "Big Tent".

Gun owners, Hunters, meat-eaters, Atheists, People who Hate Starbucks, "Elitists" (whatever THAT is)...

All "cost us votes" by driving people into the arms of the ReTHUGlican party.

[benEzra]

151. There'd better be...at least half of Dems and Indies in many swing states

own guns, and most are NOT hunters.

Shortly after the 2004 election, I pulled a lot of thoughts together into one document about how the party might stop alienating gun owners so badly; for those of you who hate guns, it may at least help you understand where we gunnies are coming from:

Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What?

[Ksec]

156. All I can do is tell you my situation

Im pro choice first off.

Secondly I was raised as a hunter and I own a gun. I havent hunted for around 9 years and I doubt I will ever return to the hunting days. Its just my beliefs on this have changed since an episode I had killing a marvelous 8 point buck. I stood over it and watched it take its final breaths. It was alarming for me to think I took this animals life, and the way that made me feel turned me against it. I felt terrible that I had taken this beautiful animals life . I still do. Im not against your right to hunt but its not for me any longer.

And I believe you wont find a stronger Democrat than I am. I dont think there is one.

[oneoftheboys]

158. Absolutely!