Changes needed for both gun control and trade policies in party

[fujiyama]

A good friend is a big hunter. He's getting a shotgun for Christmas. Yesterday he IMed me regarding a Frontline special on Wal Mart. He said he'd never shop there again (good news).

He voted for Kerry (first time voter). He dislikes Bush. He listens to Howard Stern.

Why do I bring this friend up? Well, I think it's good news he voted for KErry and I doubt he'll be swayed to vote republican. Also I have no idea exactly what his stance on gun control is, but I don't think it's worth taking a risk in alienating many of these people. Still, I think there are millions like him that did vote for Bush or ot vote because our gun control policy offends them and our trade policies aren't different enough from the repukes.

The problem is the coastal urban Dems favor gun control and can't seem to let go of it. At the same time, neither they nor the southern Dems (who for the most part seem to have realized that gun control would sink them) still can't advocate more populist themes, especially on trade.

I'm not naive in believing that this will solve all our problems and this doesn't say anything regarding the religious right and their intolerance and religious fanatacism, but I think it'd be a start to address that gun control and unrestricted free trade haven't helped the party in any way.

[el_gato]

1. I agree on both points

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. Us coastal urban Dems...

support some form of gun control because we had lived for too long with the damn BLOODBATHS that were happening on our streets everyday due to easy access to weaponry usually used by the military.

And yeah, as someone who lost a friend in the 101 Californoa shooting, I have a big problem with "letting go"...

[IrateCitizen]

4. Yes, and that's why there should be LOCAL gun control laws...

Just as it's not fair to force people in urban areas to live without any kind of gun control laws, it isn't fair to force people living in rural MT or VT to live under the same gun control laws as NYC, when they are NOT needed.

Continuing to nationalize this is a losing issue, IMHO. There are other approaches for fighting in favor of common sense gun control than strictly on a federal level.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. It doesn't work...

when someone can load up a truck with firearms in a state with less stringent gun control laws and drive them into my state and sell them under the table.

[IrateCitizen]

7. So, your solution then is to melt down all guns?

Because since you're talking about ILLEGAL guns, that's about the only thing that would work. And even THAT wouldn't work. But if you have another idea, I'm all ears.

But, such a stance is hardly a winning issue. Especially when one of the best coalitions you could develop on the left is between sportsmen and environmentalists -- but the sportsmen are all convinced that the Democrats want to just take all their guns away.

I can understand your visceral reaction to this issue based on a personal attachment to it -- but I'm sorry, there is absolutely no way what you propose will work.

[welshTerrier2]

11. but this doesn't address the "LOCAL" issue ...

without tossing my two cents in on this, it seems like the points you're making here, while perhaps valid, are not responsive to the specific problems with LOCAL gun laws raised by the previous post ...

the point raised was that LOCAL gun laws do not work because there is no way to control the influx of guns into an area that bans them when a neighboring area permits their sale ...

before we go arguing about "melting down all the guns", why not express your thoughts on whether you agree or disagree with the poster who said LOCAL gun laws don't work ...

[IrateCitizen]

12. There will never be a 100% solution

And given the current political climate, I think we only hand ammunition to the opposition when we become overly stringent on national gun control measures.

Do I want to reduce gun violence in the US? Of course! But I realize that if I really want to go for this goal, I can't accomplish it by outright alienating a significant segment of the population, giving them one issue to vote AGAINST us when there's so many others for which they can vote FOR us.

Rather than focus unduly on guns, I'd rather focus on the REAL sources of gun violence -- lack of opportunity, poverty, hopelessness, etc. Will it ever be solved 100%? No. But I think that the current approach isn't winning us too many converts, therefore another approach is required.

[welshTerrier2]

13. ok ... and ??

so you agree or disagree with the poster's statement that instituting LOCAL control over gun laws will not work because laws banning the sale of guns will be unenforceable because of the "import" problem ??

i'm not asking you whether you think we should or should not have local gun laws ... i'm asking whether you agree with the statement made by the poster ...

[Silverhair]

8. Most REAL AK-47s come in from Africa.

A real AK-47 is full auto fire capability. A look alike is capable of semiauto only. You can buy then in Africa for $15.00. So you buy a bunch of them, smuggle them into this country, and sell them for hundreds apiece. Such activity is ALREADY completely totally illegal, so piling on some more law won't solve anything.

Here is a link for my AK-47 price:

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/aussenpolitik/friedenspolitik/abr_und_r/kleinwaffen_html

Obviously, that's a German site. This is from the site map for the page I was on: Homepage: German Foreign policy: Peace policy: Disarmament and Arms Control: Small weapons

[TyObe]

9. and later when the locals run for national office...

The NRA is going to hang the big neon "Gun Grabber" sign around that candidate's neck.

Ty

[IrateCitizen]

10. You seem to think that political discourse is static

It's not. If it were, we'd still be living under the shadow of FDR as opposed to under the shadow of Ronald Reagan.

The reason that the NRA would be able to do that NOW is that they have seized the momentum on this debate, and we have allowed them to do so. There's no reason that momentum can't be seized back through a smarter approach and good framing techniques.

The vast majority of Americans want common-sense gun control. But having grown up in a family of sportsmen, I can tell you that the belief that many politicians want to take away their guns is a very real phenomenon. This is a strategy toward defusing this issue. Of course, Democrats aren't going to win NRA endorsements -- the NRA is, after all, a RW group, not just a gun owners' group. But, they can go a long way toward defusing this issue in the eyes of the vast majority of the electorate.

[Billy Ruffian]

15. Take a look at North Carolina

For at least one instance of a Democrat getting an endorsement from the NRA. Gov. Mike Easley got an A+ rating, and an endorsement, from the NRA.

Others have posted instances of Dems getting NRA endorsements.

[iverglas]

16. y'know, I'm seeing such a big blind spot

"Yes, and that's why there should be LOCAL gun control laws..."

And given that

- the purpose of rational gun control laws is to prevent harm from occurring, and that the existence of laws that punish those who break them is plainly inadequate to deter them from causing that harm

- the coastal/urban areas of the US are not surrounded by alligator-filled moats and checkpoints where searches for firearms are conducted

exactly how do you imagine that laws which, for instance, prohibit the transfer and possession of certain firearms in certain jurisdictions are actually going to prevent such firearms from being transferred and possessed there?? And if they don't, why bother?

A firearm bought in a private sale, for instance, in one jurisdiction, is a mere interstate drive away from being transferred and possessed in another jurisdiction. And the existence of laws prohibiting such transfers simply do not deter the people who engage in them from engaging in them, and using the firearms to cause harm.

REAL "gun control" actually has an effect on the behaviour of people who do not obey laws.

A few features of such gun control are:

- everyone who possesses a firearm must demonstrate that s/he meets the criteria for possession firearms (e.g. no criminal record), which is done by obtaining a licence to possess firearms;

- no transfers of firearms may be made to anyone not in possession of a licence;

- all transfers of firearms must be registered;

- all firearms must be stored securely to deter theft.

THIS kind of law is directed to people who DO obey laws -- those "law-abiding gun owners". A much larger proportion of THOSE people can be expected to obey this kind of law than the proportion of non-law-abiding people -- the ones we all want not to have firearms -- who can be expected to obey laws directed to them.

The foreseeable effect will therefore be that FEWER firearms will be transferred (through sale or theft) into the hands of the people you don't want to have them.

ALL firearms (that are not illegally imported into a country) start out being owned by a "law-abiding gun owner". Whether that owner be the manufacturer or the end purchaser, s/he/it has a much greater incentive to obey the law, be it the incentive of personal morality or of what s/he/it stands to lose if caught.


... it isn't fair to force people living in rural MT or VT to live under the same gun control laws as NYC, when they are NOT needed.

What isn't fair about it? What isn't fair about requiring everyone who wants to have firearms to be licensed for the purpose, and to register all transfers of his/her firearms, and to store his/her firearms securely?

When the firearms used to cause harm in the eastern/urban jurisdictions come from the places where you say gun control laws are not needed, as they too obviously do, how can you say those laws are not needed in the places where they are acquired?? "Not needed" by some of the people where those firearms are being acquired, perhaps; why are their needs the only ones that matter?

Why can they not be expected to give enough of a damn about victims of harm elsewhere in their society, in the country of which they are all citizens -- and a very little bit of a damn it would be -- to agree to the extremely minor inconvenience of licensing and registration?

If they don't give even that much of a damn about the people they share their country with, what makes them any different from opponents of GLBT rights and welfare-bashers and the anti-choice brigade? Why should they be pandered to any more than those others? Why is this the issue on which the rest of the country should abandon their legitimate concerns, and their legitimate interest in having measures that combat a real and serious problem they live with, in favour of the petty selfishness of their country cousins and the grossly exaggerated inconvenience they might have to endure?

I won't be interested in anyone's cries of slippery slope, or second amendment, or inalienable rights.

I'm addressing three very specific points:
- the effectiveness of jurisdiction-specific laws governing the circulation of goods, within a large and diverse society with no internal barriers to the circulation of people and goods;
- the alleged unfairness of adopting rational, uniform gun control laws; and
- the choice of this issue as the "losing" issue when there are so many other principles and policies that could be abandoned to much greater effect.

[Romulus]

21. as an aside

it won't be a "minor inconvenience" next year to those San Franciscans who obeyed the law by getting licensed and registering those handguns of theirs

- when those license and registration lists will be used by the police to go door to door confiscating said firearms.

[Retired AF Dem]

17. Any links

about those blood baths that were caused my M-60 machine guns, full auto M-16's, M 243 SAW's?

[iverglas]

18. aha

those blood baths that were caused my M-60 machine guns, full auto M-16's, M 243 SAW's?

And how many innocent children have you killed while you were driving over the speed limit? (C'mon, you know you do.)

What's that you say? NONE?? Then we must do away with those speed limits tout de suite and forthwith, I say. (C'mon, you must agree with me.)

All they do is interfere in the driving pleasure and legitimate activities of the responsible, law-abiding driver, made a criminal by the imposition of these arbitrary and ineffective laws. Speeding cars don't kill people, bad drivers kill people! If speeding is a crime, only criminals will speed!

Heck, there are no speed limits on the highways in Germany. Surely the people of the great USofA should be no less free.

[Retired AF Dem]

19. Yet there are speed restrictions on the autobahn

If you get into an accident (and survive) on the autobahn and you are driving over 130 kph you will be found partially at fault. The poster stated he is tired of blood baths caused by weapons the military uses and that is plain old BS. As the autobahns goes, yes technically no speed limits, but since the wall came down the autobahn has become to crowded to drive as fast as you want. I know a little of what I talk about, I did spend 20 years in Germany.

On edit
Since you like links so much
A guidance speed of 130 km/h is in effect; this speed is not a binding limit, but being involved in an accident at higher speeds can lead to being assigned part of the fault due to "increased operating danger"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn

[beevul]

20. I have to ask...

"damn BLOODBATHS that were happening on our streets everyday due to easy access to weaponry usually used by the military"

Cite please.


That is...link to multiple incidents happening on our streets everyday due to easy access to weaponry usually used by the military.

If they be happening every day, or were, it shouldn't be too tall an order, right?

[Royal Observer]

23. How come...

the damn BLOODBATHS usually occur in the coastal urban areas?

[IrateCitizen]

3. I agree 100%, fujiyama.

I grew up in a rural area, and have lived in both urban and suburban areas as well. Gun control must be a LOCAL ISSUE. Obviously, there is a need for strict gun control in cities -- and cities should be free to implement it. Likewise, there is little need for gun control in rural areas, and people in these regions should not be subject to the same dictates as cities.

There are enough federal laws on the books for guns right now -- the feds should enforce those stringently, and leave it up to lower levels of government to come up with and enforce additional laws.

WRT trade, I see this issue as another example of the long shadow of Ronald Reagan that still hovers over the American political discourse. Much like FDR defined the political discourse for 2 generations, Ronald Reagan has come to do the same here in the US. Many of his ideas -- a staunch belief in unfettered free enterprise, the primacy of capital over labor, the idea that any government intervention (at least on the side of workers) is bad, and so forth -- still define Beltway discourse today.

The Democratic Party will never really succeed until it can develop an alternative narrative to that of St. Ronnie, and find the kind of person who can effectively communicate that narrative. However, this still does not excuse our elected representatives from offering forth more common-sense trade policies, the kind that could attract massive numbers of voters from all over the political spectrum. There are some bright spots out there, like OH reps Marcy Kaptur, Sherrod Brown and Dennis Kucinich who seem to get it, but the upper eschelons of the Democratic Party remain largely clueless on this, too afraid to do their jobs out of fear of losing their jobs.

[nickshepDEM]

5. We claim to be the party of CIVIL LIBIRTIES

that should include gun rights. Mark Warner kept the NRA neutral in his race for govenor of Virginia in 2002. I believe this won alot of votes he would not have gotten otherwise.

[slackmaster]

14. Do we?

I searched the 2004 platform for the string 'civil liber' without requiring whole words or case sensitivity and came up with nothing.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[fujiyama]

22. .

[Royal Observer]

24. Gun control

is a losing issue for Dems. Clinton had it forced on him in 1994 and it was one of the reasons we lost both houses. Since then Dem politicians have learned to stay away from it. Why do you think Kerry shot the goose?

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

25. I am in favor of gun control

However, of all the really important issues facing us today it comes in pretty low on the list in my opinion. It certainly isn't worth losing any elections over.

[Peak_Oil]

26. This issue affects 80 million US citizens.

Period.

The Democratic Party lost the Presidency, the HR, and the Senate. All of them. If we bring the 80 million gun owners into the fold, we win. It's really as simple as that.

If we pick up an additional 10% of the 80 million gun owners in the US to the Democratic party, we win. It's over. Democrats will control the Presidency, HR, and Senate.

Ignore this issue at your peril.