LAT: Democratic base dials up pressure (on new Dem congress)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems12nov12,0,799094.story?coll=la-home-headlines

After toppling the long-dominant Republicans in a hard-fought election, the Democratic Party's incoming congressional leaders have immediately found themselves in another difficult struggle — with their own supporters.

Some of the very activists who helped restore the Democrats to a majority in the House and Senate last week are claiming credit for the victories and demanding their due: a set of ambitious — and politically provocative — actions on gun control, abortion, national security and other issues that party leaders fear could alienate moderate voters and leave Democrats vulnerable to GOP attacks as big spenders or soft on terrorism.

The conflict underscores the challenge facing presumed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the next Senate majority leader, who have both pledged in recent days to "govern from the center," after a campaign in which anger over the Iraq war and GOP scandals helped Democrats attract some unusually conservative candidates and a large share of independent voters.

Turning off those new voters could undermine Democrats' hopes of solidifying their new majorities and retaking the White House in 2008. But to the leaders of interest groups who are core supporters of the Democratic Party, and who have been barred under Republican rule from the inner sanctums of power, the new Congress means a time for action, not compromise.

Lobbyists for the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, are all but counting on Democrats to repeal the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorist law pushed by the White House that critics charge is unconstitutional. They also want to end President Bush's domestic wiretapping program.

[texpatriot2004]

1. Who do you work for? WE THE PEOPLE! nm

[mom cat]

14. We are going to have to keep reminding them that the "center" wants

the same things that we want. The majority has spoken, and if the Dem leadership chooses to ignore the will of we the people, then they will go the way of Bush and Rummy.

[grasswire]

2. bogus

"Some of the very activists who helped restore the Democrats to a majority in the House and Senate last week are claiming credit for the victories and demanding their due: a set of ambitious — and politically provocative — actions on gun control, abortion, national security and other issues that party leaders fear could alienate moderate voters and leave Democrats vulnerable to GOP attacks as big spenders or soft on terrorism."

Where are these demands being made? I'm not seeing them. Gun control?? Abortion??

Who is making these alleged demands? Where?

This sounds like disinformation to me.

[Robbien]

6. True. Gun /Choice is a MSM pushed priority issue

Not that they are not progressive issues, but every time the MSM writes about a fight between centrists and lefties in the Dem party they always throw up the Gun/Choice as priority items.

The MSM just throws it into the mix, and you are right it is just disinfo.

The real fight right now is between corporate Dems who want to get in line for some of that lobbyist money, and the progressive Dems who want to get some of our Bill of Rights back.

[w4rma]

20. I don't even believe that gun control is necessarily progressive. Women's right to make choices

about their own body and health, however, *is* without a doubt a progressive issue.

However, I don't see any push from the base towards new laws on either, at the moment, also.

[formercia]

26. Propaganda

who's clamoring for gun control?

[Zorra]

42. Agreed. Using DU as a "left of center" political barometer, I'm

inclined to write that article off as RW horseshit.

Since the election, I haven't seen a single thread where a poster was "clamoring for gun control".

[benEzra]

52. Here's one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2690708

See also post #33.

The Brady Campaign has been running around for the past few days with the line that Dems are going to give them a whole bunch more restrictions on gun ownership, including the ban on protruding rifle handgrips that they are so damn obsessed with. (FWIW, the head of the Bradyites is a repub, as is Sarah Brady herself.)

www.bradycampaign.org

I think most Dems that didn't already oppose new gun bans have wisely decided to drop the issue since '04, though.

[TankLV]

44. Me too - I'm still in the "celebration" mode...

I want to savor our victories for a while longer...

there's always time for "politicking" later...

[coalition_unwilling]

47. They're all code words for "impeachment," imho. I personally

think Pelosi should not have taken impeachment "off the table," before investigations, that is. However, given that she's third in line in Presidential succession, she has to be seen not to be advocating a course of action that might bring her personal advantage.

There are many Daniel Ellsburgs and John Deans waiting in the wings. Remember that in 1973, there was no great move to impeach Nixon.

[katsy]

3. MSM...

the drama queens

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. ...

I thought I'd NEVER get to use that .gif... :evilgrin:

[katsy]

13. ROFL!

Glad to oblige!

[HaggardsMethDealer]

4. Total crap

The Dems are going to chart a populist, moderate course that the majority of Americans support. The election showed where the majority lies on stem cell research and abortion. All of the right wing extremist measures to ban stem cell research failed. The Dems are going to enact common sense policies and investigate the President's lies for the next two years. I don't think that they are going to tackle anything controversial, because to be perfectly honest...we have to clean up another world class mess from the lifelong failure Bush. We have too much damage to roll back to concentrate on frivolous things.

However, once we win the Presidency in 08 we will truly turn the screws to these scumbags.

[coalition_unwilling]

48. 51% of Americans in a recent poll supported impeachment if it

could be shown that BFEE lied about Iraq.

[donkeyotay]

50. A populist agenda is popular across the political spectrum

and the gorporate media is scart that people will figure out that we've been given nothing but false choices and divide-and-conquer strategies.

HaggardsMethDealer . . . Ha!

:hi:

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

5. WTF? Health care? yes. Oversight/investigations? Yes.

Gun control???

[Proletariatprincess]

10. forget gun control....

Bill Maher had it right on Friday when he said let them have thier guns. It's a loser for the Dems and nothing will come of it anyway. Just like the Right should throw in the towell on the the abortion issue...it is settled law now.....the Left needs to let go of the gun issue. Americans will never agree and it is pointless to take on the gun industry now ( and that IS what it is all about anyway...not the 2nd amendment)

[fujiyama]

19. Gun control as a national issue is DEAD

I haven't heard a major Democrat talk about in a while. Even in 2004, Kerry, a northeast liberal that favored relatively strict gun control spoke of it very rarely.

On the other hand, abortion drives RW fundamentalist crazy. They won't win it. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned by the SC, the majority of states would allow it. And most voters ultimately aren't falling for republican scare tactics of "abortion on demand" and realize that it's a private issue.

[AJ9000]

34. I live in TX and many times ppl tell me no Dems b/c of guns. Leave it alone!

[rocktivity]

7. Govern from THE VOTERS, not the center.

You won because enough independents, evangelicals and "real" Republicans became convinced that you were the lesser of two evils. Left, right, and moderate had nothing to do with it: you didn't appear to be more "centrist" than the Rethugs, you appeared to be more SANE.

All you have to do is base your policies on what WE want, not what you want to pre-package and force-feed us. In other words, don't make the same mistake the Bush monarchy did.

:headbang:
rocknation

[papau]

8. Peter Wallsten and Janet Hook confuse reasonable changes to extreme Bush

positions with "controversial" proposals that will prevent the Dems from winning in 08.

They - like Carvile and many in the DLC - are reading GOP talking points and agreeing with the GOP.

We are Democratic Party folks - all of us - and I doubt any of those proposals will hurt our vote in 06 - except for the pointless assault weapons ban. The pointless assault weapons ban is a piece of legislation that accomplished nothing as to getting the people a better life, but did lose us a ton of votes.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. It's an attempt to frame mainstream issues as lefty extremist issues, the

same old same old.

Planned Parenthood, for example, is calling for more access to contraceptives for women. That would likely mean fewer abortions, wouldn't it?

Jon Tester, Senator elect from Montana, ran on repealing the Patriot Act. And won.

As for gun control, the best political answer is to localize the issue. Pass federal legislation to allow local and state governments the ability to deal with local issues concerning guns. So if Detroit wants to ban assault weapons, they can, but if Knoxville doesn't want to they don't have to.

[fearnobush]

15. Exactly - Let the states handle their own gun laws.

Montana loves there guns - let them keep them. NYC hates them, just go ask Rudy.

[w4rma]

21. No new legislation needs to be passed at the federal level to do that.

That is already the way things work now. (on gun control)

[lcordero2]

12. This gun issue is probably fake front group garbage

Same way the stem cell issue was AND STILL IS fake front group garbage. The only people that benefit from a stem cell ban is big pharma.

[Rainscents]

16. I like to know, who is feeding the info to LA times?

Gun control? I have my doubt...

[nolabels]

22. The LA Times is owned by...............

The Tribune Company (WHO OWNS WHAT) http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/tribune.asp . This is one of the Corporations that want to keep a lid on what is allowed to be heard. They are starting to get in a shipwrecked position and might be selling off pieces soon.


If you start to consider just about all Corporate media propaganda or tilted to corporations well being you will be making a good start.

[coalition_unwilling]

49. Cancelled my sub to the LA Times when they fired Bob Scheer. I used

to work for a Trib-owned subsidiary and ate lunch every day in the Times cafeteria. I wore my peace sign every day around Times' execs (back in March\April of 2003) before it was fashionable to do so (if it is fashionable now). God, I hate that paper.

[bluestateguy]

17. Tell the gun grabbers to shove it up their asses without vaseline

Those people are nothing but trouble.

[Teaser]

18. This close brush we've had with tyranny

has totally turned me against the "gun control" crowd.

[hayu_lol]

23. This heavy rush of activity toward our new majority...

just might be a Rovian bit of disinformation implimented by the Freeptards pretending to be Dems...as they did with the faux calling program in VA.

Represent yourself to Pelosi et al as Dems, demand this and that, and watch the confusion--the same confusion shown in this thread. We wonder who these people are.

I'm a mod on another dem site. We are seeing the same sort of clamor from newbies right now. Lots of indies, greens, libertarians, and even a couple of anarchists or LaRouchers.

Our regular members appear to be overwhelmed.

There is something rotten in Denmark as the saying goes.

[Divernan]

24. You mean the blustering, bellicose, demonizing, phony swaggering

claims that their and only their faction of Dems can claim total credit for the election outcomes and therefore THEY, and only they, have the right to define what-is-a-liberal and dictate pc policy to all Dems, is not limited to DU?

Unfortunately, it is not just suspect newbies, but some long term posters who have very quickly gotten high on their perceived power and spew caustic comments at anyone who disagrees with them. I hope to see some civility return to this board.

How did Pogo put it? We have met the enemy and he are us?

[formercia]

29. Iraq proved the difficulty of subjugating an armed citizenry

As long as there are 50 Million or so unregistered High Powered rifles and people who know how to use them, nobody is going to impose their will on the American People.

[billbuckhead]

33. More gun regulation is coming because voters want it

"Lots more election fallout today– as we reported yesterday, the NRA took a huge hit in the polls, and Americans made it crystal clear from coast to coast that they’re tired of gun violence and the gun lobby’s policies that keep it rising.

The Brady Campaign has dropped a press release focusing on Illinois, where multiple candidates running on a platform against firearms violence won big, meaning stronger gun laws are probably in store for the Land of Lincoln.

In statewide and local races in Illinois yesterday, Brady-backed candidates won targeted races for governor, attorney general and key state legislative races.

In another sign of power for the gun violence prevention movement in Illinois, voters in Cook County sent a strong message to the legislature when they passed Referendum Number One by what appears to be more than an 80 percent margin. The referendum urges the legislature to ban deadly military-style assault weapons in Illinois.

Brady-endorsed candidate Rod Blagojevich was re-elected governor, with his defeat of NRA-endorsed Judy Baar Topinka. In the wake of the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban, Blagojevich pushed for a statewide ban on deadly assault weapons like UZIs and AK-47s.

“In this election, the gun issue was in play, gun violence prevention groups won while the gun pushers lost, and there is now a shift in momentum on the issue of common sense gun restrictions,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."

<http://www.gunguys.com/>

[AJ9000]

35. Dems better leave guns alone! Or a repeat of mid 90's is in store.

Southern and midwestern states will not have it. BTW gunguys are anti-firearm and very biased.

[benEzra]

39. "Uzi's and AK-47's" (real ones) are already tightly controlled...

In the wake of the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban, Blagojevich pushed for a statewide ban on deadly assault weapons like UZIs and AK-47s.

“In this election, the gun issue was in play, gun violence prevention groups won while the gun pushers lost, and there is now a shift in momentum on the issue of common sense gun restrictions,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."

"Uzi's and AK-47's" (real ones) are already tightly controlled by Federal law. Helmke (a Republican, BTW) wants Dems to try to ban CIVILIAN rifles with handgrips that stick out, not military automatic weapons that are already restricted.

Point of fact: all rifles COMBINED accounted for only four homicides in Illinois in 2005, out of 448. That's less than ONE PERCENT, and includes all types of rifles lumped together.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Homicide, by Type of Weapon, by State

Modern-looking civilian rifles are NOT a crime problem and never have been. They just piss off gun-haters who can't stand the thought of anyone owning a gun that doesn't look like something a cowboy would own.

[billbuckhead]

53. Any proof that those for stronger gun regulation want you to have a cowboy gun?

Any links or actual proof that those for stronger gun regulations get pissed off about anyone owning something other than a "cowboy" gun?

BTW, It's pretty hard to spin that Speaker Pelosi is a big NRA victory.

Hey America! "NRA targeted"Ed Rendell got 2 more points statewide than Bob Casey who had a high NR"A" rating. Though in all fairness, the NRA did everything in it's power to help Casey's opponent, one of the most hated senators in America. So much for NRA hold on Pennsylvania.

[billbuckhead]

54. BTW, What's wrong with "cowboy guns"?

They proudly stole the west from the Buffalo, the Native American's and the Mexican's.

[benEzra]

57. They're SO 50 years ago...

BTW, What's wrong with "cowboy guns"?

They're fugly, to me. I'm a Gen-X'er, and to me, they are simply fogeyesque...SO century-before-last. That's the stock styling my great-great-grandfather grew up with.

One thing that struck me about the "American Hunters and Shooters Association" (which supports your right to own a rifle only if the rifle has traditional stock styling) is that all the people complaining about modern-looking guns are all old white men who grew up in a day when the stereotypical civilian gun WAS a straight-stocked specimen of walnut and blued steel.

Those days are long gone. Aluminum alloys, polymers, and ergonomic handgrips are not only the future, they are increasingly the present. IMHO, the straight-walnut-and-steel-or-else fogeys need to get used to the fact that Gen-X and Gen-Y shooters don't share their tastes, and stop trying to make it a Federal felony to own a rifle with a squarish receiver and protruding handgrip.

This is the future of civilian rifle shooting:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0195150511.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Shooters-Myths-Realities-Americas-Cultures/dp/0195150511

Not old white men shooting expensive, high-powered, 1800's styled rifles. Gen-X and Gen-Y people shooting small-caliber, modern-looking, self-loading carbines. Get used to it. (And it's not like this is even all that new; the AR-15 has been on the civilian market more than 45 years now...)

(Cowboy guns) proudly stole the west from the Buffalo, the Native American's and the Mexican's.

So you want to ban lever-action Winchesters, too?

[billbuckhead]

60. So it's all about gun lobby marketing and not about life and death?

I notice the NRA website doesn't have a picture of one of these new super duper guns but of a hunter carrying an old school shotgun broken down over his shoulder. I guess the gun lobby don't want scary guns on their main website.

<http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2482&issue=>

BTW, where's the link showing those for stronger gun regulations want you to have a "cowboy gun"? You should retract that statement for the sake of your credibilty.

[benEzra]

62. Can you read?

So it's all about gun lobby marketing and not about life and death?

OK, I sense some cognitive dissonance here. I'll repeat my point, more slowly:


All. Rifles. Combined. Account. For. Less. Than. 3%. Of. Homicides.


Let me say that again, a little faster, and I'll make it all caps so it's easy to see.


ALL RIFLES COMBINED ACCOUNT FOR LESS THAN 3% OF HOMICIDES.


Which is why I asked, why is it so DAMN important to ban modern-looking civilian rifles? Rifles are almost never misused.


IMHO, this demonstrates that, in fact, the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is about "gun-ban-lobby marketing and not about life and death," isn't it...

I notice the NRA website doesn't have a picture of one of these new super duper guns but of a hunter carrying an old school shotgun broken down over his shoulder. I guess the gun lobby don't want scary guns on their main website.

I'm not talking about the NRA, I'm talking about gun owners. Americans like me who own guns, 80% of whom are NOT hunters.

As far as "new" goes, the M1 Carbine has been on the civilian market for ~60 years, and the AR-15 has been for ~45 years. But they do look cooler than late-19th-century designs, don't they? :)

BTW, where's the link showing those for stronger gun regulations want you to have a "cowboy gun"? You should retract that statement for the sake of your credibilty.

I know you can read, so please exercise that skill a bit, for the sake of your own "credibilty."

I said guns that LOOK like cowboy guns. By mandating STRAIGHT STOCKS WITHOUT PROTRUDING HANDGRIPS, as in S.1431.

Are you trying to tell me that the ban-more-guns lobby is NOT, in fact, trying to mandate straight stocks on civilian self-loading rifles?

[billbuckhead]

64. SUV's used to account for zero percent of auto production

Let's keep these deadly terror inducing weapons scarce for the good of society.

Sorry, you don't have a liberal gun lobby against "cowboy guns" due to lack of interest. The overwhelming fighters for unlimited rights for gun owners and manufacturers is the NRA. The fact being that that the preeminent gun organization and one of the most sophisticated lobbying organization uses the least offensive looking gun on their political website tells a lot. That turtle didn't end upside down on that fencepost by random luck.

[benEzra]

67. You're about a quarter century too late, bill...

Let's keep these deadly terror inducing weapons scarce for the good of society.

You're about a quarter century too late, bill...they're not "scarce."

Even if you confine yourself to owners of AR-15's, civvie AK lookalikes, mini-14's, and SKS's, there are now more of us in this country than there are hunters. If you add in people who would be affected by your broader "assault weapon" definition (e.g., any civilian gun holding more than 10 rounds, aka S.1431/H.R.2038), you're talking about potentially half of all gun owners. That'd be 30 to 40 MILLION people.

The AR-15 is probably THE most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States. If you go to a shooting range on a random day, you are a more like to see a small-caliber black rifle on the line than you are to see a Winchester 94 or a Remington M700. I just went to the range last weekend with the mini-14, and most of the people on the rifle side of the range were people like me--younger than 40, and shooting modern-looking small-caliber carbines.

You might have gotten away with an "assault weapon" ban in 1968--if anybody had wanted to ban them. The AR-15 had only been on the market for six or seven years, FAL lookalikes for only a bit longer, and there weren't many SKS's in private hands yet. So maybe you could have gotten away with taking people's M1 Garands and .30 Carbines. Maybe even in 1975 or 1980, with enough fearmongering, but it wasn't an issue because rifles just aren't commonly misused. I believe it was Pete Shields who promised in 1980-ish that the gun-control lobby would NEVER go after restrictions on long guns, just for handguns, because only handguns are commonly misused. That was back when the gun-control lobby's goal was the reduction of criminal gun violence, remember? When background checks and such were a priority?

But 1990 was too late for you; we Gen-Xer's became old enough to own guns in the '80s...and you lost. We didn't buy the old-fashioned Remchesters the old-money gun manufacturers wanted to sell us; we gravitated toward more modern looking, smaller caliber guns made by younger, less conservative companies. Then Feinstein came along and tripled sales of guns with modern styling, and the rest is history. Winchester just closed its U.S. plant and stopped making the Model 70 high-powered bolt rifle, but manufacturers of little .223 carbines can't keep up with demand.

SUV's used to account for zero percent of auto production

But you're not trying to ban SUV's--big, powerful, heavy, cumbersome, stodgy-looking. You're trying to ban 4-cylinder Civics with wings and levitation lights, Scions, Ford Focus, Mazda 3's, Volvo S40's. Sport compacts with shiny wheels and look-at-me styling. Because any car with shiny wheels and an air dam is a "race car" that "serves no legitimate transportation purpose," is "designed to outrun police and run down children," and "you don't need a Mazda MX-5 to tow a boat." No, you don't understand the issue at all...

[billbuckhead]

69. Assault rifles or fake assault rifles serve no useful civilian purpose

It would be no problem if we didn't have all these innocent dead people and billions of dollars in costs.

[benEzra]

71. Modern-looking civilian carbines serve exactly the same purposes as civilian shotguns...

Assault rifles or fake assault rifles serve no useful civilian purpose

Modern-looking civilian carbines serve exactly the same purposes as civilian shotguns. Namely recreation, defense, and small-to-medium game hunting. The .223 Remington is a popular small-game hunting caliber, is the most popular non-rimfire target caliber in the United States, and with the right ammunition is arguably superior to pistol rounds as a defensive caliber, since .223 JHP is even less likely to penetrate exterior walls than pistol rounds. Those are pretty much the same reason why Americans own shotguns, bill. (But I'm sure you don't think those serve "useful civilian purposes" either.)

It would be no problem if we didn't have all these innocent dead people and billions of dollars in costs.

Almost none of which (<3%) involve rifles AT ALL, never mind rifles with modern styling.

Those deaths are just an excuse to you, because they generally don't involve rifles. A fact that you can't quite seem to get your head around, since you keep citing those statistics as a reason to ban rifles with handgrips that stick out.

One more time: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Homicide, By State and Type of Weapon. All styles of rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides, and multiple states will report zero rifle homicides in any given year.

[billbuckhead]

72. I know 300 or so people a year is a small price to pay for your gun fun

You always try to marginalize people deaths. You always try to minimize the terror guns cause and emphasize how much fun they are. Recreation ally, you could achieve the same results with paintball.

BTW, tell me again how Steny Hoyer as MAJORITY leader is a win for the gun lobby and it's mnions?

[benEzra]

73. Still trying to revive the "Dems'll take yer guns" meme, I see...

but to your point: banning rifle handgrips that stick out would not reduce rifle-related homicides (which are almost down to one-in-a-million at this point) one bit.

Rifle homicides already rank below deaths caused by bathtubs in the U.S. Are you familiar with the concept of "chasing the receding zero" in risk analysis? It's irrational, and you're doing it.

[benEzra]

56. Yep...

Any proof that those for stronger gun regulation want you to have a cowboy gun?

I said guns that LOOK like guns a cowboy might be seen with. Linear receivers and straight, 1800's style stocks. Which is why they are fighting SO hard to ban handgrips that stick out.

S.1431 (2004 session)
[br />108TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION

S. 1431

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JULY 17, 2003

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 6
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’
means any of the following:
(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability
to accept a detachable magazine, and that has—
(iii) a pistol grip

Step back for a minute and consider this data:

www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides. ALL of them. Combined.

So WHY is it so damn important to outlaw rifle handgrips that stick out?

[michreject]

45. 33 posts before an anti posted

we, as a group, are getting better. Guns are a losing issue. There are other concerns.

[Rose Siding]

25. Hmmm...why would activists count on freshman dems to take on *part* of the PA?

"Let Me Be Clear. I don't want to fix the Patriot Act. I want to repeal it." -Tester

[ananda]

27. If I vote Dem, I expect..

.. the person I vote for to represent ME, not big business.

[Johnyawl]

28. This is Rove at work

Use wedges issue to divide the center from the left, and allow the right to recapture enough of the center to regain power.

The right is TERRIFIED that the center/left will hang together long enough to make a difference on the real issues of ending perpetual war, saving our Constitution, rescueing Social Security, and working on National Health Care, and economic justice and equality.

[EFerrari]

43. Yep. This is a load of KR. The Democratic base is too busy

earning a living and feeling RELIEF to dial up anything yet.

[Kablooie]

30. Guns and abortion are REPUBLICAN ISSUES!

They are designed to make Democrats an opposition party.
Any Democrats who push these as major issues right now are
falling right back into the Republican hands.

Boy, we've got bigger fish to fry.

[billbuckhead]

61. More Americans are dying from guns in American than insurgents in Iraq

I guess the innocent victims of guns in America don't count. They must be Amish, black or something.

Then what does it really mean to be pro-gun? Check out the the letter to the editor below.

To the Editor:

As a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., and the new president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, I have long considered myself a “moderate” and welcome David Brooks’s comments.

But Mr. Brooks, by using labels like “pro-gun Democrats” to describe candidates like Jim Webb, falls back into one of the good-bad traps of political discourse he criticizes.

Concerns for gun violence prevention and public safety should not be categorized as pro-gun versus anti-gun.

What’s “anti-gun” about wanting background checks to make sure that those with criminal records aren’t buying guns legally? What’s “anti-gun” about restricting bulk sales of handguns, a sure sign that someone wants to sell those guns illegally on the secondary market?

Why isn’t it “pro-gun” to want to crack down on the 1 percent of gun dealers who sell 57 percent of the guns that end up being used illegally; or to support more financing for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

When a candidate says he wants to enforce “the gun laws on the books,” why don’t we see that as being opposed to the gun lobby’s efforts to weaken “the laws on the books”?

I came to the Brady Campaign to bring a common-sense, “moderate” approach to reducing the gun violence that is too prevalent in our communities. This is where most Americans seem to be on the issue.

Paul Helmke
Washington, Nov. 9, 2006

•<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/opinion/l11brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>

[Zhade]

31. Claiming credit? More like earned it.

Certainly wasn't DLC bullshit that got people to vote against the war or b*s*, since that group has supported the first and enabled the second for YEARS now.

[goforit]

32. Dems need to prioritize worst problems to least worst.

[depakid]

36. Talk about slanted copy

I can see why the LA Times is losing circulation.... and why I don't bother to read it anymore.

This piece was about as transparent a bit of right wing drivel as on can get.

Way to go Tribune Corp.

[cassiepriam]

37. Everything cannot be done right away. There is so much damage to repair.

The US is bankrupt, we need a free press and free elections.
And the tremendous political corruption.

And most importantly stop the killing in Iraq.

[PsychoDad]

38. Universal Healthcare.

Once enacted will be one of the things that will help the poor and middle class the most, and will seal the Democrats' position of political dominance for many years to come.

Universal healthcare. One payer.

That along with election reform, withdrawel from the war, repeal of the PA,and oversight must be our priorities.

Peace.

[billbuckhead]

55. Reality is that many hospitals are bankrupted from treating gun victims

Gun violence has heavy price

Study: Victims taking toll on budgets, communities.

By Jessie Halladay
[e-mail]
The Courier-Journal

This article appeared on the front page on August 28, 2005

"Louisville's University Hospital treated more than 700 people with gunshot wounds in 2003-04. The cost: More than $18 million.

And those numbers aren't shrinking: Officials say University Hospital is on pace to see 400 gunshot victims this year, at an estimated cost exceeding $10 million.
Gun violence "is a huge, huge public health problem," said Dr. William Smock, an emergency medicine specialist who directed a recent study that outlined those numbers.

And it has implications beyond those shot.

While gunshot victims represent just 6 percent of University's trauma patients, the cost of treating them is virtually eating up the hospital's indigent care budget, according to the study, which the hospital undertook with federal grant money aimed at reducing gun violence."

<http://www.uoflhealthcare.org/f_pressrelease.asp?id=200>

I know, these shooting victims don't matter to some of us.

[benEzra]

58. And that relates to banning protruding rifle handgrips, how?

Per the FBI, the entire state of Kentucky had only 8 rifle homicides in 2005, out of 177 total. That's all styles of rifles COMBINED.

Might want to figure out why being a violent criminal is such an attractive career choice in Louisville and address the underlying social problems, no?

I say again--why is banning rifle handgrips that stick out SO damn important?

[billbuckhead]

59. Better guns and more gun promotion aren't going to solve this problem

Unfortunately, your hobby is causing so much financial problems for our healthcare system. It's not the people, it's the easy access to guns. Americans aren't worse than Australians, Irish or Japanese.

There weren't many SUV rollovers until there were more SUV's. As the gun pimps promote and market more of these assault rifle knockoffs, they'll surely be used.

Now explain to me how Nancy Pelosi is a big NRA victory? :rofl:

[benEzra]

63. No, because they're RIFLES...

and RIFLES are greatly underrepresented in homicides.

Fact: Small-caliber rifles with handgrips that stick out have been on the market since the 1940's-early 1960's.

Fact: The popularity of small-caliber rifles with handgrips that stick out increased during the 1970's and 1980's.

Fact: Already popular before the '90s, sales of small-caliber rifles with handgrips that stick out VASTLY accelerated after 1993, so that (for example) more AR-15 type rifles were sold post-'93 than in all the years 1961-1992 combined.

Fact: Modern-looking small-caliber rifles are now among the most popular civilian centerfire rifles in America.

Fact: All rifles combined STILL account for less than 3% of homicides.

www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html


There are a number of approaches you can take when you find you are riding a dead horse, as we were recently reminded in another thread. The preferable approach, of course, would be to dismount, but you can keep beating it if you want...

[billbuckhead]

65. More people are killed in the USA by rifles than by Al Queda in last 10 years

The reason for going after the most deadly rifles and military style weapons is because there is more public support for it. Large majorities are for banning this type of gun as opposed to pistols or shotguns because they see no positive utility in having them easily available. The AWB is low hanging fruit. We passed it once and can pass a far better one.

[benEzra]

66. Hmmm...according to the CDC, two hundred and fifty times as many people

More people are killed in the USA by rifles than by Al Queda in last 10 years

Hmmm...according to the CDC, two hundred and fifty times as many people were killed in that time frame by alcohol. Bringing back alcohol prohibition should be 250 times more important, right? :eyes:

Ad hoc rationalization of nonsensical positions--such as bans on civilian rifles that are rarely misused--is precisely why the U.S. gun-control lobby is in the sorry shape it's now in. You guys could have had background checks on private sales years ago, and probably could have funded BATFE tracing of EVERY gun used in a crime to completely eliminate straw purchasing. But no, that's not what drives you. It's not the criminal committing murders with a .38 that you hate so much; it's the law-abiding, responsible adult, who owns a small-caliber carbine for target shooting and defensive use, that you despise the most.

Your obsession with banning guns that are almost never misused shows that you aren't really aiming at reducing criminal gun violence; that's just your excuse. It's people like me, and many of the other gun owners on this board, that you're aiming at.

A "fanatic" has been defined as one who redoubles his efforts after losing sight of his goals. That applies to the U.S. gun-control lobby in spades.

the most deadly rifles and military style weapons

Actual military type weapons are already tightly controlled by Federal law, as you well know.

The CIVILIAN carbines we're talking about here are *not* more deadly than guns you say you don't want to ban.


Ruger Mini Thirty 7.62x39mm self-loading civilian carbine, ideal as a short-range deer rifle


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?act=module&module=gallery&cmd=si&img=268">SAR-1, 7.62x39mm self-loading civilian carbine, in hunting configuration

The first carbine above is a short-range deer rifle that NOBODY, to my knowledge, is trying to ban. The second rifle is my little target carbine.

These rifles are IDENTICAL. Same caliber, same range of magazine capacities, same rate of fire, same mode of operation (gas piston cycled, rotating bolt), same size, same weight, same everything. The only difference is that the first one has an 1800's/early 1900's style straight stock, while the second one looks (but does NOT function) like an AKM.

Spare me the "most deadly" rhetoric. Both of these guns are less deadly than a full-power deer rifle, never mind a .729 caliber shotgun like you say you are OK with people owning.

Large majorities are for banning this type of gun as opposed to pistols or shotguns because they see no positive utility in having them easily available.

Hmmm. The AR-15 platform is THE most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States, and is a heck of a lot more popular than most deer rifles. I think you overestimate the support for banning AR-15's and mini-14's and such (much of your "support" comes from people you've misled into think these are either military weapons, or are commonly used in crimes, both of which are false), and underestimate the opposition from nonhunters--who are, after all, the majority of gun owners.



Bill, if you had your way, you'd kick people like Webb and Tester out of the party--and need I remind you that it was those two victories that gave us the Senate.

You hate guns and gun owners; I understand that, and I think I may understand why. But you need to look beyond that, and realize that there are a lot of rational, reasonable people out here who legitimately disagree with you on this topic. And you're not only telling us we're not welcome in the party, but you're threatening us with violence (by proxy) if we don't conform to your views. How is that different from the theocrats and neocons?

Threatening people who disagree with you to "live by my choices, or else" is a BIG reason why the repubs just lost. But don't forget that it's also a big part of why Dems lost the House and Senate after the original Feinstein ban passed in '94.

Small-caliber nonhunting rifles are NOT a crime problem in the U.S. and never have been. Leave them alone; banning them isn't the most important issue on the table, unless you choose to make it so.

[billbuckhead]

68. No other advanced nation suffers under these ridiculously weak gun regulations

Hopefully, America won't suffer much longer from them. The inconvenient truth many want to ignore is that "gun rights" are just code for white supremecy. The "god, guns and gays" myth is just so much politically correct camoflage for naked racism. Here's a timely article about this in Salon. BTW, how again is speaker Pelosi a big win for the gun lobby and it's minions?

Do Democrats need the South?

The party is doing fine, winning the Northeast, the West and the Midwest. So why is James Carville still pushing a Southern strategy?

By Thomas F. Schaller

Nov. 14, 2006 | If you look at a map of the 2006 election, you'll notice that the blue wave actually has a huge red Southern hole in it.

Five of the six Senate seats the Democrats picked up were outside the South. Five of the six new Democratic governors are from outside the South. Of the 30 or so House seats that Democrats wrested from Republicans, only five were Southern -- and two of those were gifts. Both Republican candidates were defending seats that had been held by disgraced pariahs –- Mark Foley and Tom DeLay –- and both were forced by the quirks of electoral law to run as write-ins. They still almost won.
--------------------snip------------------------------

Why do the Democrats struggle in the South? Why, for example, did a candidate like Harold Ford lose in a Democratic year? In the case of Ford, four explanations are possible. One, all of his pandering to lure values voters backfired because it made him look inauthentic; two, the questionable legacy of his father was too much to overcome; three, no matter how much Ford tried to moderate his image, a small but critical share of white Tennesseans were simply not going to pull the lever for an African-American candidate; or four, the state and the region are just too conservative to elect a Democrat and have a built-in bias toward Republicans.

As to why Democrats in general struggle, and how the state and region became so Republican and conservative, there are five answers. First and -- sadly -- foremost, as it may have been in Tennessee, is race. Analyses of the National Election Study data from 2004 show that the attitudes of white Southerners on national defense and even abortion fail to explain their preference for Republican presidential candidates, but attitudes on race do. Anyone who needs proof of the power of racial polarization in the South need only look at the blackest state in the union. Mississippi is 38 percent black, yet has a Republican governor, two Republican senators, and delivered its electoral votes to George Bush without a fuss twice. Southern whites vote as a racial bloc for the GOP. Statistics seem to show that loyalty to the Republican Party is at its highest among voters in Wyoming, Idaho and Utah –- until you start crunching the numbers for white voters only, and realize just how solid and white the GOP's solid South is.
-------------------snip-------------------------------------------------
<http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/11/14/no_south/>

Ironically you want use CDC statistics to make an absurd comparison between weapons and drugs. The irony is that gun lobby has done everything in it's power to keep the CDC from statistically evaluting gun policy. Here's an article and a link for this info.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a mind-boggling report showing that the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate for children was 16 times higher than the combined rate for children in 25 other industrialized countries. Meanwhile, the U.S. child rate of firearm related suicide was 11 times higher. The report was one of a number of recent CDC funded studies that have fueled a growing perception in the medical community that gun violence has reached epidemic proportions.


But not everyone buys it. "They are politicians and liars masquerading in lab coats," says Dr. Edgar Suter, a San Francisco Bay Area family practice physician who chairs a 500-member non-profit group called Doctors for Integrity and Policy Research. Dr. Suter argues that CDC researchers blatantly support anti-gun activities and ignore the benefits of gun ownership, resulting in "dishonest factoids that advance their preordained biases," he says. Along with the National Rifle Association, Dr. Suter's group has campaigned to get Congress to cut CDC's funding for gun violence research.



Last year, Congress nearly slashed the budget for the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), which collects and monitors firearm injury data and funds related research as part of its mission. As a result of new funding mandates, CDC this year has been forced to dramatically reduce its firearm-related injury research, and CDC-funded gunshot injury surveillance programs will come to an end in several states
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/injuries.html>

[benEzra]

70. Which again, has NOTHING to do with bans on modern-looking rifles.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon

All rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides, which works out to roughly the same number of Americans who drown in bathtubs each year (332 in 2003, FWIW). And that's all types of rifles combined. Two hundred and fifty times as many people are killed by alcohol each year as are murdered with rifles, if you take the CDC figures as gospel.

BTW, pro-gun does not mean "the South." Most of the West and Pacific Northwest are pro-gun, except for CA, as is most of the Northeastern states other than MA, NJ, and CT. MD is anti-gun, so is IL, CA, HI. That's about it. IIRC, only five states out of fifty restrict modern-looking rifles in any way, Bill. Because RIFLES ARE NOT A CRIME PROBLEM AND NEVER HAVE BEEN.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

40. Republicans only wish that we were going for gun control

What we're after is much more frightening than that to them. We want subpoenas and then we want them under oath.

On the national security front, Democrats actually plan on implementing the recommendations of the 911 Commission, rather than using peoples fear as a wedge to stay in power.

As for abortion, as far as I know Roe vs Wade was still standing after all these years. I hate to have to remind them, but they failed to deliver overturning it to their base. However, if they want to keep reminding their followers how they failed, fine by me.

This article is stereotypical noise, worthy of a few giggles and little more.


The Democratic Party: We're here to serve you, not use you. :patriot:

[jollyreaper2112]

41. Take your medicine

The core liberal values are good medicine for this country. Unfortunately, the GOP has been very good at making that medicine look like a bitter pill. The problem with the liberal message isn't with the substance, it's with the way we market it. By contrast, the GOP agenda is bad medicine for the country but their marketing makes it look like prime rib. Any time you see the GOP flaks on the talk shows, they're usually spanking the Dems. It doens't matter if what they're saying has no substance, it's more persuasive than the Dem angle. Look at how we got spanked in 2000. Look at how we got spanked in 2004. I don't think our marketing was a whole lot better this election than last but between Dean and the GOP implosion, we got lucky.

The Dems have seriously got to consider reshaping their media strategy. Do NOT play nice. Go for the kill. Honest to God, I think we should make the Daily Show required viewing for any Dem going on television. Sit them down Clockwork Orange style and make them watch. Be positive, be relaxed, be friendly, but when the Puke says something false, kick him in the nuts. Stab him in the heart. For the past six years, the Dem leadership has done nothing to earn our loyalty. (I'm talking party leadership.) The rebuttals to the State of the Union speeches have been weak tea. The outrages in Congress, against our liberties, we've heard nothing. There's a bully pulpit out there, folks, it's called the media. Even if you don't have control of Congress, you can still shame the Republicans and rage the ire of the nation by pointing out the wrongs. Now that we do have Congress, we can dig up the facts and the truth. Once we have them, DRIVE THE NEWS CYCLE. Be on the attack, don't just play a defensive game. Go for blood.

More required viewing should be Farenheit 9-11. Michael Moore really took a backseat in that production, he just let the GOP damn themselves with their own words. It's harder to attack the messenger when he's not editorializing, he's just taking a picture of the other side at their ugliest and letting everyone else take a good look. If you call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot, you look like a meanie. If you play the clip of Rush mocking Michael J. Fox, the viewer comes to that conclusion all by himself.

The last point I want to bring up because I feel it's so important, WE NEED RESULTS TO RUN ON IN 2008. The GOP has been fairly awful in delivering on their promises to their voters. They had no record to run on. If we want to avoid a similar fate, we need to push hard to get things done before the next election. I have a feeling the GOP will try to stonewall and make us look like do-nothings. That's when we whip out the bully pulpit. If they want to be obstructionist, let the entire country see that this is why we can't get anything done. "We have all these nice ideas but just can't seem to get the GOP to go along with them. Tell you what, you vote a few more Dems in next election, we'll get you the results you want."

[mhatrw]

46. Damn right we want our Constitution back.

The rest of the article is a load of Rovian bull crap.

[calimary]

51. The ONLY thing I'm dialing up pressure about is IMPEACHMENT.

That is Job One.