Hmm. Looks like I've found the gun control lobby's role model

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_Party

Prohibition Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Prohibition Party (PRO) is a political party in the United States best known for its historic opposition to the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. It is the oldest existing third party in the US. The party was an integral part of the temperance movement. While never one of the leading parties in the United States, it was an important force in the politics of the United States during the late 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. It has declined dramatically since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. The party earned only 643 votes in the 2008 presidential election. The Prohibition Party advocates a variety of socially conservative causes, including "stronger and more vigorous enforcement of laws against the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, against gambling, illegal drugs, pornography, and commercialized vice."...

They've gone from from getting Congresscritters and governors elected (not to mention getting the 18th Amendment passed) to getting about 1/500000 of Americans to vote for them.

I knew the likes of VPC and the Brady Campaign had been seen before...

[onehandle]

1. Here's their opposition's model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gherkin

They are usually picked when 4 to 8 cm (1 to 3 in) in length and pickled in jars or cans with vinegar (often flavored with herbs, particularly dill; hence, "dill pickle") or brine to resemble a pickled cucumber.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. Aww, *somebody* isn't handling their electoral irrelevance very well at all.

May I suggest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_tissue

[cleanhippie]

54. Projecting again, onehandle?

:rofl:

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Can you imagine running scared from piddling groups like those?

I can't - but some folks actually do.

[SteveM]

50. I think you miss-read what many are here for...

To rid the Democratic Party of a manifestly terrible issue stance: Gun control. It's the gift that keeps on giving -- to the G.O.P.

That doesn't seem to be a concern of yours.

[ThatPoetGuy]

4. You know the majority of Americans favor more gun control, right?

That's what Pew Research says, not those r....-.ing blogs where you get your "information."

There's an intensity gap, it's true; there are about 10% of Americans who are gung-ho pro-gun, who will gripe about some imaginary "war on guns" until every man, woman, child, and household pet is armed to the teeth, whether they want it or not.

There are no Americans who stand on the mirror of that, intensely, slavishly devoted to an unthinking ideology, saying all guns should be banned. There isn't one person like that, as far as I know.

This is why the donation gap is so huge; a brainwashed multitude reads that same echo-chamber of blogs, telling them what to think, and they give fortunes to anti-American propaganda groups. The donation gap leads to a PR gap. And then fools believe the PR of public relations rather than, say, the PR of Pew Research.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. That would explain the series of new, stricter gun control measures we've seen lately...

There are no Americans who stand on the mirror of that, intensely, slavishly devoted to an unthinking ideology, saying all guns should be banned. There isn't one person like that, as far as I know.

Strictly speaking, you are correct- It's the ones that civilians own that they want banned.

I do love this bit of yours:

You know the majority of Americans favor more gun control, right?

This is why the donation gap is so huge; a brainwashed multitude reads that same echo-chamber of blogs, telling them what to think, and they give fortunes to anti-American propaganda groups.

Then what explains the membership gap? The Brady camapign on a good day has 50,000 or so members (or at least that's
the number of names on their membership list they were selling).

The NRA has four million, outnumbering the Bradys about 80:1.


The Prohibitionists are at this very moment sure that if they can just get their message across, somehow, someday they'll be able to revive the Eighteenth Amendment...

[SteveM]

8. If it weren't labeled, the majority of Americans would oppose the BOR...

For years, since I was a kid in the 50s, the Miami Herald would set up a card table in downtown Miami and have the text of the Bill of Rights, set up in "yea" or "nay" petition form, but leave the titles/numbers off so as to disguise what the document was about. A respectable majority of citizens checked off "nay."

The problem here is not the "gung-hos," but the persistence on the part of liberals (perhaps really centrists)/Democrats of pursuing gun-control, when that wasn't even an ISSUE when the Zombies were charting. (NOTE: Both Pelosi and A.G. Holder have both called for re-en statement of a beefed up AWB SINCE Obama took office.)

You should keep in mind that the main gun-control groups (name changes not withstanding) have a deeply scored history of wanting to ban ALL guns (they just hide that, now).

Wouldn't it be nice if the Democratic Party just dropped "gun control" completely? Don't you want that?

[DanTex]

9. This is correct, though gun advocates aren't generally interested in data...

Not only do the majority of Americans favor more gun control, but you find even more support if you get more specific. Support for closing the gun show loophole runs over 80%. Support for a national gun registry is around 65%.

The situation, sadly, is similar to the public option in HCR, tax cuts for the rich, climate, etc. The polls show support for the liberal/Democratic side of the issue, and yet there's more special interest money on the right.

Another thing that makes gun policy similar to those other issues is that not only does the public general favor the liberal side, but the US is essentially alone among wealthy democracies. Really, the only group of people in the world that generally agrees with the extreme anti-gun control sentiments of the NRA are right-wing Americans.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. There are very few...

...who favor the RKBA who want all firearm laws eliminated just as there are few pro-control advocates who want a total ban.

I think both sides would like to see some reasonable progress but not everyone is reasonable.

I think democrats do themselves a great dis-service by bashing the NRA as many progressive minded voters are members. It is possible to campaign for a cause without bashing organizations on either side.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. +1

[DissedByBush]

20. The loaded words you use show why polls go that way

A "loophole" in American culture is usually considered to be something bad, to be stopped.

I used to do surveys professionally -- one can bias the results even without the intent for bias. You have to be very careful.

Put a gun control group behind it, and you can be sure of the outcome.

But there is NO gun show "loophole."

It is simply the private sales of private property between civilians that has been going on since before this nation was founded.

Now ask your people if they'd like to ban the classifieds.

[iverglas]

21. what is the connection between the two things in your subject line?

Do you actually think that public opinion polling companies use shorthand like "gun show loophole" to survey the public?

Here, I just posted this, for you now:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=452256&mesg_id=454509

[DanTex]

27. What she said

One example of a poll along these lines.
Require all gun buyers at gun shows to pass a criminal background check: 89-9
Require all gun buyers to pass a criminal background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from: 86-13
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Bloompoll.pdf

And there are other polls.

[iverglas]

22. oh, and here's a funny one

Now ask your people if they'd like to ban the classifieds.

How strangely your mind works ...

Did someone say they wanted to PROHIBIT the private sales of private property between civilians that has been going on since before this nation was founded??

No. I didn't think so.

The proposal is for background checks at the time of private sales.

Not for a prohibition of private sales.

Twice in one short post you seem to have managed to muddle two unrelated things.

Please get back to us on that other one. You know, the opinion polling stuff you're an expert on.

[DissedByBush]

29. Standard codewords

"Limit" means to ban. If not now, down the road -- by their own admission.

"Regulate" is the same.

Yes, it bans private sales that have been going on since before this nation was founded.

They are no longer private, they become regulated by the government. It effectively turns every person who wishes to sell his private property to another person into a low-level version of a federally licensed dealer.

That's regardless of the fact that "proof" of eligibility is easily forged to get past the average gun owner would would be accepting the "proof."

[iverglas]

36. and what you said was "ban the classifieds"

You seem to have realized how moronic that was, given your decision to ignore it now.

They are no longer private, they become regulated by the government. It effectively turns every person who wishes to sell his private property to another person into a low-level version of a federally licensed dealer.

No, they are still private. Private transactions.

What they are not is SECRET.

That's regardless of the fact that "proof" of eligibility is easily forged to get past the average gun owner would would be accepting the "proof."

No, the average gun owner would be having the standard NICS background check done. (This certainly wouldn't approach adequate regulation of private sales, to my own mind, since there would still be no record, but it's what's available now in the US and requiring it would be something better than nothing.)

Clearer now?

[DissedByBush]

38. Do you realize how hard it is to do that recordkeeping?

The ATF comes down like a ton of bricks for any mistake.

They were after a gun shop in North Carolina for years, causing them $$$ in defense.

The shop had something like a ONE PERCENT error rate in its paperwork and had a training program to try to improve. That was good enough to the ATF to want it closed.

The judge asked the ATF if their own error rate was less than one percent. They had to admit not, and the judge dismissed the case.

This is the level of scrutiny individuals will get if they are forced to become effectively mini-FFLs.

Any such level will END private sales, since the average individual cannot afford the risk, probably can't afford the transaction overhead.

[iverglas]

41. uh, yeah, I do

and how unreliable the records kept will be.

That's why a public firearms registry is the only rational approach.

Duh.

Maybe once people find themselves subject to those record-keeping requirements when they transfer their firearms privately, they'll figure that out too, eh?

Any such level will END private sales, since the average individual cannot afford the risk, probably can't afford the transaction overhead.

Gosh. Hard bananas.

[PavePusher]

47. So, how good is that public firearms registry that you have up there?

Solved much crime? Stopped any crime?

Or has it just been a way to flush tax dollars into a hole?

Edit: P.S. Any cost over-runs?

[iverglas]

56. has our firearms registry solved child poverty?

No, not yet ...

Let me know when you hear of anybody committing a crime with a firearm they bought at a gun show in Canada, or from a licensed gun dealer (whether personally or via a straw purchaser).

You won't find them, because it's virtually impossible to acquire firearms that way in Canada because of licensing.

Then let me know when you hear of anybody committing a crime with a firearm they acquired from a licensed owner through a private transfer.

You won't find them, because it's virtually impossible to acquire firearms that way in Canada because of the firearms registry: licensed owners know they will be identified if they do it.

Handguns (the weapon of choice for criminals) used in crime in Canada are

(a) trafficked into Canada from the US
(b) stolen from people in legal possession of them

Anybody in Canada who bought a handgun legally and trafficked it on to an unlicensed individual would be a complete and total fucking idiot.

Without a firearms registry, there would be no way of monitoring the possession and transfer of handguns, and we'd have the same problems you have (and we have to an infinitely lesser degree as a result): feral guns all over the place, acquired by straw purchase from licensed dealers and then trafficked on, and by ineligible or straw purchasers at gun shows and then trafficked on.

Absent easy access to handguns, crimes are committed in Canada with long arms -- as they are in the US, actually. So I'll keep working to get rid of the fucking Conservative Party and its right-wing asshole gun militant supporters and their long arm amnesty at the earliest possible opportunity, which unfortunately won't come for four more years now.

The wheels of democracy sometimes grind exceedingly slow, but grind on they do.

[DissedByBush]

71. "it's virtually impossible to acquire firearms that way in Canada because of licensing"

Thank you. You just proved my point.

The licensing isn't to ensure safety. The goal is to end such sales.

[iverglas]

72. what the fuck?

The licensing isn't to ensure safety. The goal is to end such sales.

Er, yes.

The goal is to end sales TO PEOPLE WHO ARE INELIGIBLE TO POSSESS FIREARMS.

Duh. Is that not the goal of the NICS system?

A licensing system is simply a far, far better way of achieving the goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of people where it is contrary to the public interest for them to have firearms.

Are you unable to read, or just unable ... or unwilling ... to admit what you read?

I said this:

Let me know when you hear of anybody committing a crime with a firearm they bought at a gun show in Canada, or from a licensed gun dealer (whether personally or via a straw purchaser).

You won't find them, because it's virtually impossible to acquire firearms that way in Canada because of licensing.

If you don't see that what I said meant it's virtually impossible FOR AN INELIGIBLE PERSON to aquire firearms that way, then you must have imagined some bizarre meaning for yourself.

If it were virtually impossible for ANYBODY to acquire a firearm that way, well, we wouldn't be talking about Canada.

There are gun shows in Canada, and there are gun dealers, and there are private sales of firearms. Loads and loads of all of them. There is no "prohibition" on any of those forms of firearm transfers.

Here's a directory of gun shows for you; take your time:
http://www.firearmscanada.com/gun_shows.html
Down at the bottom you will find a link to a directory of gun dealers, and a link to firearms classified ads (that is currently under renovation).

Or do you actually not know the first fucking thing about Canada at all, and you were just regurgitating memes from right-wing gun militant internet sites ... or this forum ... ?

I apologise if I was unclear.

Now you apologise for spewing false right-wing memes, 'k?

[DissedByBush]

75. Not the goal

"The goal is to end sales TO PEOPLE WHO ARE INELIGIBLE TO POSSESS FIREARMS."

The goal is to end sales, PERIOD.

[iverglas]

79. does your face hurt

when you look in the mirror?

Obviously your conscience doesn't hurt when you type that crap. Out of commission, is it?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[DissedByBush]

70. You either don't understand the anti-gun movement

Or you are part of it, continuing the whitewash.

The goal is never "sane" regulation for safety. The goal is to ban guns, period.

Perfect example: Chicago post-McDonald decision. They legalized guns in the city, and enacted regulations that amounted to a de-facto gun ban.

Same for Washington DC after Heller.

Both cities have been smacked down the the courts a few times for their obvious attempt at an undercover gun ban.

It is plainly obvious: They want to ban guns regardless of any issues of constitutionality and law.

If they want regulation of private gun sales, then their goal is the elimination of private gun sales, and regulation is only a step.

[iverglas]

73. yip yip yip

yap yap yap

It is plainly obvious: They want to ban guns regardless of any issues of constitutionality and law.

You know, there probably are people who actually believe that.

I doubt that you're one of them.

[DissedByBush]

76. How do you explain Chicago and DC?

Both had their gun bans ruled unconstitutional.

Both immediately rewrote their gun laws in a way that technically allowed guns, but made it virtually impossible to actually legally acquire one.

They don't CARE about the constitutionality of what they are doing.

They want gun bans, whether official or through regulation so oppressive so as to constitute a de facto ban.

This is ADMITTED. The Violence Policy Center talks about regulation but flat-out states their end goal is a total handgun ban and heavy restrictions of long guns.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. where are you getting this information?

some charts, graphs, links would be nice.

[iverglas]

37. you missed posts 21 and 27?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. thanks.

It is like looking at a coin. You see heads and I see tails. That data did not seem to be majorly conclusive to me one way or the other.

looks like the same old mess that it has been.

I think that crimes involving guns should bear the full extent of our laws but, I really do not think that writing more laws are going to stop criminals from doing what criminal have always done.

I want more Dems elected and 2A seems to be a push button issue for a lot of voters.

I wish Dem politicians would just not PUSH for further gun control and let us just have one election where it is a non-issue and then let us just see if it makes a difference.

There are other more important issues (in my mind) that USA needs to deal.

Take this "power" away from the Repubs and let us see what happens.

[iverglas]

42. and I'm sorry, but you're not paying attentoin

I really do not think that writing more laws are going to stop criminals from doing what criminal have always done.

The laws in question, effective laws, are not meant to be obeyed by criminals.

Criminals can do what they have always done only only if they are able to do it.

If there are effective bars to straw purchases and private sales to ineligible persons, just for starters, that's going to put a dent in gun trafficking, which is how criminals get a lot of guns.

Registration is the ticket there.

Require the law-abiding gun owners to register firearms transfers.

If the firearms sold to a straw purchaser who intends to traffic them are registered AND that purchaser is subject to a registration requirement for any subsequent transfers, there's going to be a little less gun trafficking.

A lot fewer people are going to be willing to be straw purchasers for hire, which is what does go on now, for one thing. The gun gets found as a crime gun, they are accountable for how it got there. None of this "I sold it to a tall white guy at the mall parking lot, gee,I didn't get his name".

Not so many girlfriends may be as eager to buy guns for their criminal boyfriends.

Not so many criminals are going to be able to pick up guns via private sales from legal owners, whether at gun shows or at the kitchen table, because the legal owners will be the ones with something to lose once they are accountable for their firearms.

And then there's the whole storage thing. Some people really will think twice about leaving their guns lying around unattended and ripe for theft if they have a legal obligation to secure them (and if there are public education and information campaigns to reinforce that obligation). Again, if they know they are accountable, and they are people with something to lose if they get caught, they have an incentive to obey the law.

Criminals have little incentive to obey the law. Laws that say criminals may not possess firearms simply do not deter them from doing that, they just allow for punishment if they get caught.


I want more Dems elected and 2A seems to be a push button issue for a lot of voters.

And as long as people keep believing that most of those voters would vote Democrat if it weren't for that awful assault weapons ban ... well, I don't think many people believe it, but there ya go.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. Iverglas --

you are I come from two different philosophies. You are never going to convince me and I have long since quit trying to convince you.

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree and be friends, OK?

I really appreciate that you care about our country enough to spend a lot of time in this Guns Forum. I understand that you and the Pro 2a
have some stimulating conversations but, it looks to me like the Pro2a are making more progress legislatively.

[iverglas]

45. no, that isn't it

you are I come from two different philosophies. You are never going to convince me and I have long since quit trying to convince you.

You keep on with the memes: criminals don't obey laws.

Genuine discussion involves setting those things aside.

That isn't disagreement.

That's demagoguery.

I really appreciate that you care about our country enough to spend a lot of time in this Guns Forum.

Actually, I care about the world, on which the US has a rather disproportionate influence, far too often for the worse. My own country bears the brunt of some of that worse.

I understand that you and the Pro 2a have some stimulating conversations but, it looks to me like the Pro2a are making more progress legislatively.

Where's the "but" here, and what's the point?

Tax cuts for the rich are having considerable success legislatively, and electorally, too.

Is that an argument for something?

[DanTex]

46. Well, sort of...

You and I may disagree on gun policy. But this discussion got started on the topic of whether gun control is unpopular. You have gone on to suggest that the Dems may be losing votes because of their support of gun control, and you are not the only one who has made this suggestion. For some reason it is a mantra of the pro-gun movement that the American people generally oppose gun control and the Dems need to accept this or it will cost them elections.

Of course, there is a way to check how people feel about gun control: opinion polls. No, they aren't perfect, but in this case the results of the polls are pretty clear: significant majorities of Americans favor laws like requiring BCs for all gun sales including private sales, and a national gun registry. There are many polls showing this, not just the ones linked to above. Polls also show comfortable majority support for banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. This is all despite the fact that, along with most pro-gun people, you probably believe that there is no such thing as the gun show loophole, that a registry is either unworkable or a first step towards confiscation, that "assault weapons" are just "scary-looking" guns, etc.

All that is fine, and we can disagree about the policy in other threads. But the issue here is popularity, and poll numbers are poll numbers. You can argue that a gun registry is bad policy but it's tough to argue that it's unpopular in the face of the poll data.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. your definition of significant majorities and mine are different.

[DanTex]

53. Fair enough, though describing 65% as significant is hardly a stretch.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. if you get that consistently across the nation and without using push polls - -

maybe . . . but, I have not seen enough evidence to support that assumption.

State by state, even county by county, because it is my understanding that there is very much a significant divide between rural and metropolitan areas on the issue of guns.

So I can see where city people would answer the poll one way and rural people would answer it differently.

[DanTex]

57. The wording seems pretty clear to me.

For example, the exact wording of the gun registry question in the poll I linked to above:
Require every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry

I have seen questionable wording in polls, but never for a gun registry question, because it's clear what a gun registry is.

Now, it's true that the poll I cited was commissioned by a gun control group. But it was conducted by two professional polling firms, one Democratic-leaning and one Republican-leaning. Also, if you look at the poll data that iverglas linked to, it was by National Opinion Research Center, which is basically beyond reproach, and it has similar findings (in fact even stronger support for gun control). On the other hand, for the gun registry question, I haven't seen any poll showing less than around 60% in favor. That doesn't mean such a poll doesn't exists, it just means I haven't seen it. Have you? Anyone?

Regarding the urban/rural thing, yes, there is a split. The split is not as big as the liberal/conservative split, by the way, but it is there. Still, the polls I've been discussing sample from the entire country, which is the standard way to do it.

On all issues, there are differences based on demographics, geography, income, race, etc. But an overall majority of 65% is significant nonetheless. Honestly, I've never heard the objection that a 65% majority "doesn't count" as significant unless it holds uniformly across different geographical regions. It does seem like you are just trying to find ways to avoid the conclusion the data points to.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. are you saying that all polls give this 65% majority?

in the end . . .recent VOTERS seem to nullify your poll's findings. why is that?

[iverglas]

62. have you considered doing any of your own homework?

If you want to attack the multiple offers of public opinion evidence in this thread alone, you need to do a little work.

in the end . . .recent VOTERS seem to nullify your poll's findings. why is that?

Do you have some actual basis for asserting that votes in general elections are attributable to voters' position on firearms regulation? Do you have proof that Republican voters in recent elections would have voted the other way were it not for their views of Democratic Party positions on the issue? Even if those views were based in fact? Enough to alter outcomes?

When did a general election become an opinion poll on a single minor issue?

Got some facts to offer?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. the fact is

every grown man, where I live carries either openly or concealed and everyone in vicinity owns guns of some variety.

When did a general election become an opinion poll on a single minor issue? when it keeps people voting Dems then it is an issue because I want to see more Dems elected.

[iverglas]

67. wow

When did a general election become an opinion poll on a single minor issue? when it keeps people voting Dems then it is an issue because I want to see more Dems elected.

I guess you were demonstrating that whole petitio principii thing for us.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

68. wow

I knew I shouldn't have even deemed his crap question with a reply.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. There's a better "way to check how people feel about gun control": Elections

And so far, gun control is losing those opinion polls...

[DanTex]

52. The one-liners are cute...

Not very substantive though. There are gradations of pro-gun thinking, and this kind of stuff shows up towards the shallower end, where people start to simply ignore all data that doesn't align with the ideology.

Sure, there is no denying that government policies have moved to the right over the last few decades, not just on guns, but across the board. Indeed, the Obamacare plan that got zero Republican support was actually first conceived by conservative think tanks as a more free-market alternative to Clinton's health care reform ideas.

At the same time, polls often show that public opinion is often well to the left of where the government has been moving. Again it's not just on guns. For example, raising taxes on incomes over 250K polls at around 65% (about the same as a gun registry), while cuts in social programs are even more unpopular. An interesting piece by Nate Silver a while back pointed out that the debt ceiling compromise was actually further right than what even Republican voters wanted, according to polls. The public option in HCR also polled well, but wasn't able to survive the onslaught from organized right-wing special interests.

Perhaps all this seems incomprehensible to you: that the government and the electorate may be out of sync, that moneyed special interests exert disproportionate influence on policy etc. Or perhaps it's easier to just ignore it all, and live in that imaginary black-and-white world of yours which can be described without compound sentences. But, I would encourage you to put the ideology down from time to time, and try to appreciate the complexities of the way our democracy works, for better or for worse. Sure, it's always nice when the special interests coincide with your own, but I'd say even then it's better to appreciate what's actually going on.

[iverglas]

58. California's Proposition 186 (1994) was an excellent example

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8764388

Proposition 186 was an initiative on the November 1994 California ballot which proposed to establish a state single-payer health care program. Although Prop 186 was overwhelmingly defeated in the November 1994 election (73% No, 27% Yes), it accomplished many things. Model legislation was developed showing the feasibility of a specific single-payer program for California. It was placed on the ballot by an unprecedented volunteer signature-gathering effort and was the largest grassroots political campaign fund-raising effort in California history. A novel strategy for the discussion of complex issues through 1500 house parties was launched. Prop 186 was defeated by an insurance industry-led coalition with an anti-government message. Lessons for future efforts include increasing the size and duration of the grassroots organizing and educational effort, and decreasing reliance on conventional political campaign tactics and the mainstream media.

When the insurance companies poured their millions into the state to defeat the proposition, what was the issue used by the groups they also funded?

Abortion.

Of course.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-24/local/me-30441_1_california-health-insurance

Yet, despite its importance, Proposition 186 has received scant press coverage. Unless that changes substantially and soon, voters will be left at the mercy of sound bites and unreliable advertising. Hardly the best way to make a decision with severe financial and health implications for us all.

... Opponents argue that Proposition 186 is too good to be true. Proponents say that they are biased, and cite official disclosure reports revealing that 92% of their funding comes from the same health-insurance lobby that is spending so heavily to block reform in Washington.

You do not win by letting the opposition occupy the field and spread its false message about you everywhere.

If people want something, as people obviously do in the case of firearms control, then offer it to them and call the opposition what it is: well-funded lies from wealthy special interest groups that don't give a crap about the public and its interests.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. and, of course the other side comes back with the dismissive

"how cute" remark. wtf. voting is now cute???????????????? jaysus.

participating in this forum is the ultimate exercise in futility.

[DanTex]

63. No, what is cute is the childish, superficially clever punchline...

...that actually serves to ignore a more subtle yet undeniable reality: that elected politicians can be swayed by special interests to make policies that are not in line with the will of the people. As I illustrated with concrete examples, and polling data. Care to comment on that?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. like I said previously

if this was a non issue, it is my firm belief that more people in rural areas would vote dem.

[Hoopla Phil]

18. Snork! "There isn't one person like that, as far as I know." Here ya go. . .

Meet Larry Gross: "I’m for gun control. Yes, I want to take away your gun. I believe only a few people should be allowed to have them…"
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/08/daniel-zimmerman/61469/

And how about good ol Dianne Feinstein: Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "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. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein#Gun_politics

[iverglas]

25. this post is seriously problematic

In response to this statement in the preceding post:

There are no Americans who stand on the mirror of that, intensely, slavishly devoted to an unthinking ideology, saying all guns should be banned. There isn't one person like that, as far as I know.

Hoopla Phil quotes Dianne Feinstein saying:

"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. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

He cites wikipedia. This is what precedes the quotation there:

In 1993, Feinstein, along with then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY), led the fight to ban many semi-automatic firearms and restrict the sale of firearm magazines deemed assault weapons. The ban was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In 2004, when the ban was set to expire, Feinstein sponsored a 10-year extension of the ban as an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; while the amendment was successfully added, the act itself failed. The act was then revived in 2005, and, despite Feinstein's best efforts, was passed without an extension of the assault weapons ban.

Even the NRA-ILA qualifies its quotation as follows, with my emphasis:

http://www.clintongunban.com/Articles.aspx?i=59&a=Articles

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban <on "assault weapons">, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
CBS 60 Minutes,
Feb. 5, 1995

This effort to portray Feinstein's statement as something it was not has been pursued at this site for a decade. I addressed this really very problematic behaviour here earlier this month:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x445879

Nonetheless, in response and obvious intended rebuttal of the statement (with my emphasis):

There are no Americans who stand on the mirror of that, intensely, slavishly devoted to an unthinking ideology, saying all guns should be banned. There isn't one person like that, as far as I know.

this poster quotes Dianne Feinstein's statement about the firearms covered by the former assault weapons ban.

I have just one question.

Why?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. You know the majority of Americans favor more gun control, right?

No, I did not know that and I don't believe it either.

[krispos42]

77. And most Americans self-identify as conservative.

Although when you ask them, say, 20 questions about specific issues, they usually come up liberal.


Sort of how on an item-by-item basis of the health-care reform of 2010, people were supportive of the provisions... until you call it "ObamaCare" or "PelosiCare".


If you ask somebody if they think there should be a 10-round magazine limit, and they say "yes"... is that person asked "why 10?" Has that person ever had to even think about it? Or are they just responding to an emotion or a talking-point that been imbedded in their brain?

How about "assault weapons", or the "gun show loophole"?



It's a fact that Americans in general are politically ignorant. We can laugh about the Teabaggers as being worse than average, but the average isn't that great. So the fact that a majority of Americans are in favor of specific items doesn't bode well.

I like to think that Americans are pretty good at the broad feelings of how things should be, but on specifics? Not reliable.

[iverglas]

80. I think you have it backwards

Totally.

Apply your statements about health care reform to gun control.

You get exactly the results that polls have got.

On the specifics, people overwhelmingly support the various measures.

Give it a name that the right-wing has turned into a meme, and you get broad opposition.


How about "assault weapons", or the "gun show loophole"?

WHAT about them?

Since it's been demonstrated that these terms are NOT used in the polls in question, what is your question? Or is it just a meme?

[safeinOhio]

6. The fear of gun control is right up there with

the fear of Sharia Law, teh gays agenda and a half Irish President. All widely supported by Fox News watchers.

[SteveM]

10. Thank Pelosi. Holder. After Obama was elected. nt

[safeinOhio]

12. Yup ,

Fox news used them to spread the fear of sharia law and the gay agenda.

[SteveM]

23. Actually, Pelosi and Holder didn't need any assistance.

[rl6214]

34. WTF are you going on about

and do you have anything to cite for any of that?

[iverglas]

7. what, you thought you were being original?

Lordy. How many times have we been treated to this?

Yes, the extraordinarily brave women who fought for the vote and countless other benefits of personhood for women, and also worked tirelessly to rescue women and children who were victimized and abused by their husbands and fathers, themselves the victims of alcoholism ... they are to be mocked incessantly by all right-thinking people.

My own best-known example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_McClung

... Between 1904 and 1911, Nellie McClung, her husband Wesley (a druggist) and their five children resided in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The women’s rights movement in Winnipeg embraced her. An effective speaker with a sense of humour, she played a leading role in the successful Liberal campaign in 1914. ...

Her great causes were women's suffrage and the temperance. ... She championed dental and medical care for school children, property rights for married women, mothers' allowances, factory safety legislation and many other reforms. ... She served as a Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta from 1921 to 1926. As an opposition member, her opportunity to press for women's rights was limited, because women were not taken seriously

She was fighting for things 100 years ago that you in the US don't have even now, when it comes to basic social services.

She and colleagues were also affected by the "scientific" approach to social policy that was popular in all quarters at the time, and some of the solutions they advocated to the truly horrific problems they were facing we now see as misguided as a result.

Susan B. Anthony is your counterpart: women's suffrage and temperance were her two great causes too.

The Temperance movement and its members were really very complex; there was much that we would condemn about them, but that's how history works.

A USAmerican woman nobody here has ever heard of:

http://www.geocities.com/~svpress/articles/fwillard.html

Frances Willard:
America's Forgotten Feminist
(1839-1898)
by Faith Martin

Leading Feminist of the Nineteenth Century

In the Capitol in Washington, D. C., each state is represented by a statue of its most honored citizen. Of all the fifty states only Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, is represented by a woman. Her name is Frances Willard. "Who is she?" you ask.

... How could anyone drop completely from the consciousness of a nation after having been so famous during her lifetime? Bordin argues that the fortunes of the temperance movement are to blame.

... The <Women's Christian Temperance Union> was founded in 1874 in response to widespread concern that American society was breaking down. Alcohol abuse was rampant. There were no legal limits on the alcoholic content of whisky, and it was often lethal. The problem of a man drinking his paycheck at the tavern before going home was common. A wife had no legal right to her husband's paycheck, and tavern owners were not inclined to stop serving husbands. At the same time, there were no laws protecting wives from physical abuse. Neither was there public welfare to support starving women and children--of which there were many.

... Nothing concerning women escaped Willard's attention. She campaigned for change in prostitution laws, attacking grievous situations that were allowed to flourish. Prostitution in some lumber camps amounted to child slavery. The age of consent in twenty states was a mere ten years of age, and in one it was seven. ...

On the subject of rape, Willard wrote, "... When we reflect that in Massachusetts and Vermont it is a greater crime to steal a cow than to abduct and <rape> a girl, and that in Illinois <rape> is not considered a crime, it is a marvel not to be explained that we go the even tenor of our way, too delicate, too refined, too prudish to make any allusion to these awful facts, much less take up arms against these awful crimes. We have been the victims of conventional cowardice too long."

... In 1886, Willard distributed an address to "Working Men and Women--Brothers and Sisters of a Common Hope." It commended the Knights of Labor, the leading labor group of the time, for its broad platform of mutual help "which recognizes neither sex, race, nor creed." It also praised their tendency to elevate women industrially by claiming "equal pay for equal work."

... By the time Willard assumed the presidency of the WCTU, she was well known as a powerful advocate of women's suffrage ...

And no, she was not talking about packing pistols when she said "take up arms".

Yes, the likes of VPC and the Brady Campaign have indeed been seen before.

They're seen throughout history in the persons of people who have fought to make the world better for people who whom the world is truly shit.

Kinda like the NRA-ILA does, eh? No sarcasm thingy is big enough for that one.

[apocalypsehow]

13. The transparency of the agenda and ideological ugliness that lurks just beneath the surface never

fails to flabbergast me. It's not brazen, exactly, because to be brazen would require a conscious understanding that something is amiss with one's worldview. Such self-awareness is simply lacking on the part of those who actually think they've been fooling somebody.

In any event, thank you for this reply - it should educate & shame, but I won't be holding my proverbial breath.




Edit: typo-grammar.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. "False consciouness"? Really? Looks like we have another (self-appointed) zampolit at hand

I suppose it's easier to serve up a denunciation of the "racist misogynist right wing" (with a side of condescension) than, you know, critically examine why your 'movement' is in decline...

[gejohnston]

30. even easier is a big helping

condescension, smothered in arrogant gravy. Hold the critical examination to any degree.

[iverglas]

17. some here know

that my real on-line fun is genealogy: after some years discovering my own ancestors' mysteries (and they had some doozies), I turned to other people's, and am singlehandedly responsible for all sorts of miraculous doings, from identifying people's greatx8 grandparents to finding out who their grandmother really was to uniting an elderly academic in Australia with his half-siblings in Ireland, younger children of his theretofore unknown father, the member of the landed gentry who I figured out was the dashing young businessman in southern England who left a factory girl in the family way in the early 1920s.

Anyhow. In the recent season of the US version of Who Do You Think You Are, a celebrity whose name I forget learned about her female ancestor in New York being expelled from teacher's college after her mother's death, in a family that seemed rather disordered to start with. It wasn't even hinted at in the program (and the celebrity got a very wrong idea as a result), but from the location and known socioeconomic facts of the family, I'd be 99% sure that the father she then stayed home to housekeep for, and rear her younger siblings, was one of the men described in the article above.

This wasn't some uncommon situation. Alcoholism was endemic, wives and children did starve. The same was true in England where my ancestors were. It wasn't limited only to men -- the victims of Jack the Ripper weren't self-actualized sex trade workers, they were a few of the many impoverished, homeless women who were themselves alcoholics in virtually all cases ... which problem came first may have varied. Probably many were alcoholics from childhood on the streets.

You're right. When one's worldview is so plainly lacking in explanations for the phenomena one observes, one might really think there is something amiss indeed.

[tortoise1956]

24. Genealogy? I have a question...

If you are interested, I'll PM you with something my family has been trying to resolve for 50 years...I recently looked into it, but my resources were limited and I couldn't find an answer.

Let me know if you want to give it a try, and I'll send you what I have.

NOTE: my apologies to all for going off-topic.

[iverglas]

26. PM me, but two caveats

I don't have acess to many US records (my grandparents were all born in England so I don't tend to pay for subscriptions to broader databases).

And I don't want you to give me any info that would make you identifiable in any way. If you can give ancestral info that I can't trace back down to you (whether through formal databases or through online family trees or other info on line), I'd be more than happy to take a shot.

Mind you, that is up to you, and if you choose to do that, I could give you my assurances that I am the world's most tightly shut oyster when it comes to the personal info of anyone and everyone, even of the person who stalked me on line, even when I figured out who she was and dug up everything there was to know about her. ;)

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Nice try- but this isn't your first attempt to whitewash the WCTU:

Seems like the WCTU has (and had) some unsavory and decidedly unprogressive connections:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=144654#147097

[iverglas]

19. you and your verb tenses

Perhaps you're pretending that I said something other than that the organizations and individuals in question held some views and advocated some policies that we today view as unacceptable, or that I didn't say they were complicated.

All I'm seeing at the link you sent me to are things like this:


You:
Still maintain they are in "the vanguard of progressive social policy"?

Me:
Since I never maintained any such thing, why would you ask me whether I still maintain it? I mean, other than to create the false impression in someone's mind that I did maintain it. Eh?
I'm sure you read what I said:
"yes, the WCTU was usually in the vanguard of progressive social policy"
Now, how are you on verb tenses?


Oh, and I gave you this, too, irrelevantly non-USish as it is:

http://theeyeopener.cfhosting.ca/storydetail.cfm?storyid=1651

The building across the street from Jorgenson Hall was built in 1921 by the WCTU, an influential, but unheralded, group in the fight for prohibition in Canada. It is now the home of Covenant House Toronto. More than 5,000 homeless young people seek comfort here every year. Counselling, health care, and educational and employment assistance give tenants the opportunity for "independent lives and a better future."

... The inhabitants of Covenant House have Letitia Youmans to thank for their comfortable surroundings.

Youmans, a stepmother of eight from Picton, Ont., organized the first Canadian local union of the WCTU in her hometown in 1974 {obviously 1874}. A year later, she started the Toronto local and 13 years later Youmans organized the Canadian National Union of the WCTU.

It was an organization that advocated for woman's rights. It fought to protect the rights of children and worked to reform society by promoting Christian moral values.

The WCTU helped found the Parent Teacher Association, promoted stiffer penalties for sexual crimes against women, fought for federal aid for education and demonstrated for world peace.

... "The WCTU effectively passed from the scene in the 1920s and their many accomplishments soon faded into the mist of the forgotten past, replacing this important historical record was the stereotypical view of the WCTU as a group of aging women rather irrelevantly railing against mainstream society and its mores," writes Cook.

The WCTU is still around. They donate to Covenant House Toronto, appreciative that their old headquarters provide a safe alternative to the streets.

And good atheist that I am, I won't be hearing voices raised against Christian moral values. I tend to live according to them myself. Love thy neighbour as thyself, you know?


Oh, and as for that year 2008 WCTU crap you flung around in that thread ...

Wasn't the Democratic Party the party of slavery at one time?

It changed, the WCTU changed, things change ... and you pretending that statements by the WCTU of 2008 reflect in any way on the WCTU of the last quarter of the 19th century and first quarter of the 20th ... well, what that reflects is either enormous ignorance or enormous intellectual dishonesty.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. My point is The WCTU/Prohibitionists have faded into irrelvance and/or sheer nuttery....

...not because of what they did, but because of their inability to accept that their time had past.

I see it here with the gun Prohibitionists: "If only we had the money that the GOP/NRA had"- while ignoring the inconvenient truth
that their .orgs are at best 3 or 4 percent of the NRA's size.

Now, popularity is no marker of virtue anywhere, especially in politics- but if your opponents are more popular than you are,
FFS at least adjust your tactics to acknowledge it.

[iverglas]

39. ... because the organization is no longer the same organization

You understand how these things happen, right?

The Democratic Party of today and the Democratic Party of the 19th century have the same name, but are not the same.

Kinda like the WCTU of 1920 and the WCTU of 2010.

Amazing, eh?

In 1891, the Liberal Party of Canada was the party of free trade, or "reciprocity", as it was then known, in the true "liberal" tradition. The Conservative Party slogan was "No truck or trade with the Yankees".

In the 1988 election, the Liberal Party vowed to rip up the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement signed by Conservative PM Brian Mulroney. ... Of course, when it eventually got the chance, it didn't ...

Hell, CORE was once a genuine advocate for African-Americans -- and I wouldn't say it wasn't, no matter that it is now a corrupt right-wing fringe outfit.

The WCTU of a century ago fought for destitute, abused women and children. Too bad you don't seem to like that.

So I'm still seeing you devoid of a point.

And for chrissakes ...

I see it here with the gun Prohibitionists: "If only we had the money that the GOP/NRA had"- while ignoring the inconvenient truth that their .orgs are at best 3 or 4 percent of the NRA's size.

I don't see anybody saying that anywhere, and the actual truth is that the racist, misogynist right wing happens to be on the ascendancy, driven by its devotion to its own interests and its ability to co-opt and delude people who are overly devoted to their own interests but not really smart.

Or were you saying that the Tea Party or the old GOP itself occupy some moral high ground by virtue of their ability to suck up money and spew money and lies back out, and thus win elections?

Never too sure just what you are saying, I fear.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. If you proclaim moral and intellectual superiority over 20-25% of the population,

while at the same time claiming that they don't really have a right that they sincerely believe they do- they
have and will actively vote against you. And sweep away all else that you stand for when they do so.

It's as true today with guns as it was with alcohol in the past. You don't need to be Niccolo Machiavelli to figure this out.

Claro?

[iverglas]

61. look, I have no idea what you are yammering about

much less what point you think you are pounding.

It's as true today with guns as it was with alcohol in the past.

What's as true with guns today as it was with alcohol in the past is that enormous harm is being caused to a society and its members.

And decent people, people who are in fact radical in many ways in their efforts to create an inclusive, just society, were then and are now in the forefront of the struggle to reduce those harms.

Prohibiting alcohol wasn't the panacea. But you'll note that we now have content rules and labels for alcohol, significant regulation of the distribution of alcohol, all sorts of public education and information about harms associated with alcohol, and other social measures to address the harms associated with it a century ago that were what the temperance women were trying to address at the time.

You plainly don't like the idea of uppity women trying to protect women and children from the depredations wrought by men, be it as a result of their alcohol consumption or their gun play. Hard bananas.

Many social problems are not easily solved. Some people think it is worth looking for ways to reduce harm, and not simply throw up one's hands because after all, it's those root causes that have to be fixed. You don't give a shit. Your choice.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. Few are trying to prohibit the sale of alcohol these days. The same isn't true about guns

Some of them even post here. As far as reducing harms, the NRA supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the national instant
background check system. The fact that they don't go as far as you'd like doesn't mean they're not trying to reduce harm.

What you said about alcohol could be easily said about guns:

Prohibiting guns isn't a panacea. But you'll note that we now have content rules and labels for guns, significant regulation of the distribution of guns, all sorts of public education and information about harms associated with guns, and other social measures to address the harms associated with them.

You plainly don't like the idea of uppity women trying to protect women and children from the depredations wrought by men, be it as a result of their alcohol consumption or their gun play.

Do you know this via telepathy, or the fact that I don't agree with you on these issues?

As a matter of fact, I don't have much problem with liquor laws as extant (save for the inability to legally acquire
Clear Spring around here), nor do I hold with spousal or child abuse.

What I don't like is the idea of trying to do things that will impinge mostly on people who are not
those you are purportedly trying to affect. "Disagrees with iverglas" =/= "dislikes 'uppity' women", no matter how much
how often you proclaim the equivalence of the two.

[iverglas]

74. forgive me if I don't continue reading this tripe

Nobody's trying to institute slavery either, despite the Democratic Party's former support for it.


Oh, what the hell:

What you said about alcohol could be easily said about guns:

Prohibiting guns isn't a panacea. But you'll note that we now have content rules and labels for guns, significant regulation of the distribution of guns, all sorts of public education and information about harms associated with guns, and other social measures to address the harms associated with them.

Just to ask: did you have a point?

If anybody were trying to prohibit guns, I guess you could use my words against them. Feel free.


What I don't like is the idea of trying to do things that will impinge mostly on people who are not those you are purportedly trying to affect.

Awwww. That's so sad, and too bad.

I do like that "purportedly" though. Very ... cute.

[rl6214]

35. This is only your opinion and that dosen;t make it right

"Yes, the likes of VPC and the Brady Campaign have indeed been seen before.

They're seen throughout history in the persons of people who have fought to make the world better for people who whom the world is truly shit."

[iverglas]

43. and that was only pointless noise

and that makes it pointless noise.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. The real problem...

...is the socio-political momentum these issues build when the unthinking follow the anti-liberty politicians.

The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th and placed the control of alcohol sales in state control. The Mississippi was the last state to repeal state level prohibition in 1966. Kansas did not allow sale of liquor "by the drink" (on-premises) until 1987.

When will Chicago and DC really join the rest of the country?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

66. they will eventually.

give them time.