Democrats Go After Gun Politics

[davepc]

Stepping gingerly back into the thicket of gun politics, some Democrats are offering up a few proposals to make them less on the defensive on an issue that many claim cost former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the presidency.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., spoke at a National Wildlife Federation briefing Wednesday afternoon, pushing efforts to expand conservation areas for hunting and fishing grounds as well as better protection of the environment for sportsmen.

"Sportsmen have been stereotyped as concerned with one issue: guns. But if you listen to sportsmen as I have over the years ... we hear a different story," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.

The goal is to allow Democrats to play at least a little on the offense on an issue that party leaders will not bring up because of fear of major political repercussions to its members by the powerful National Rifle Association. Top Democrats are still reeling from NRA-led defeats in 1994 of their members who voted for the Brady Bill and legislation to ban some assault weapons. Others say the issue likely cost Gore a win in West Virginia in 2000 that would have put him in the White House.

Dingell said hunting and fishing areas need better environmental protection, specifically citing that enforcement of the Clean Water Act needs to be beefed up to protect those lands. "These have not been a good eight years," said Dingell, a stalwart NRA member. Lincoln cited the increasing loss of public hunting areas that threaten the opportunities for families to go shooting or fishing, like hers will do in a few weeks at a dove hunt in Maryland.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/print_friendly.php?ID=co_20080828_8741

It's been what, 15-20 years AND THEY STILL DONT FUCKING GET IT.

THE 2nd ADMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING. IT'S ABOUT DEFENSE OF SELF AND STATE.

[katandmoon]

1. Well, I'm not in a militia. Are you?

[virginia mountainman]

2. Well, according to Federal law...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Most of us males are. No matter what anyone thinks. It is right their, in black and white...

And besides that, the 2nd Amendment IS, an individual right, just like the rest of the first 10 Amendments

[spin]

4. Naw, I'm too old...over 45

"The militia of the United States shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, except as hereinafter provided, not more than forty-five years of age
http://www.guncite.com/journals/lhamil.html

[jody]

7. If you live in Florida, you may be a member of the militia since FL includes those over 45.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0250/SEC02.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0250-%3ESection%2002#0250.02

250.02 Militia.--

(1) The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens.

(2) The organized militia is composed of the National Guard and any other organized military forces that are authorized by law.

(3) The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.

(4) Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms of federal law are exempt from military duty in this state.

[spin]

10. There may be some question....

Looking for the present at the state constitutions and laws it will be seen that the constitutions of the following states prescribe the age limits of eighteen and forty-five years, without mention of parental consent: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming.

The constitutions of the following states make no mention of age limits: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, New Jersey, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

Statutes of the following states prescribe age limits without mention of parental consent: California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Statutes of the following states require parental consent for the enlistment of a minor: Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New York, South Dakota, Texas, Oregon, West Virginia.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/lhamil.html

I would have no problem if I did qualify for the militia and I were to be called up. I do have weapons and ammo and I proudly served my country in the Vietnam era. I spent my time in the Air Force at Lackland AFB in Texas, Kessler AFB in Biloxi Mississippi and Otis AFB on Cape Cod Massachusetts. I can only tell my grandchildren war stories that involve babes on the beach, fishing and bar hopping. Oh well.

[jody]

11. As I quoted in my post, you may be exempt under "Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms

of federal law are exempt from military duty in this state."

Have a peaceful evening. :hi:

[jody]

6. If you are a resident of Maryland, then you may be a a member of the miltia as stated in MD law.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?spa=MDC-1000&rs=WEBL8.08&fn=_top&findtype=VQ&sr=TC&db=1000018&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&cite=I3317AE509C-E711DB9BCF9-DAC28345A2A

Title 13. Militia (Refs & Annos)

Subtitle 2. General Provisions (Refs & Annos)

§ 13-202. Membership; exemptions; waiver of exemptions

Membership

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the militia consists of able-bodied individuals who are:

(1) citizens of the State; or

(2) of foreign birth and who:

(i) are residents of the State; and

(ii) have declared their intention to become citizens of the State.


Exemptions

(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, an individual is exempt from subsection (a) of this section if the individual:

(1) is exempted by the laws of the United States;

(2) is exempted by the laws of the State;

(3) is a member of a regularly organized fire or police department in a county, city, village, or town;

(4) is a judge or clerk of a court of record;

(5) is a register of wills and deeds;

(6) is a sheriff;

(7) is a member of the clergy;

(8) is a practicing physician;

(9) is a superintendent, officer, or assistant of a hospital or correctional facility;

(10) has been judged mentally incompetent;

(11) is addicted to narcotic drugs; or

(12) has been convicted of an infamous crime.

[slackmaster]

15. It seems a lot of people are unaware of their own militia status, but more importantly,

Its compulsory nature. Most of the states (including mine) have CRIMINAL penalties for people who unlawfully refuse militia duty.

[TPaine7]

8. Your question has been answered in several posts.

Was your question part of a genuine inquiry, a search for truth? Have you incorporated the answers into your thinking?

If so, what are the implications for your understanding of the Second Amendment?

Will you throw out the same argument in a few weeks without any accounting for the facts?

Just curious.

[benEzra]

12. Much more importantly, I'm in the "PEOPLE".

The right protected by the 2ndA is not recognized as belonging to the militia, but to the people at large. An armed populace is a necessary precondition in order to have a well-trained militia (look up the late 18th-century meanings of "well regulated" in OED), but is not dependent on the militia's existence.

But, as others have pointed out, those of us between 17 and 45 are legally in the "militia" as well, per Federal law.

[slackmaster]

14. At age 50 I am too old to be compelled to do militia duty, but yes I am a member of the militia

:hi:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[one-eyed fat man]

19. retired military

We are subject to recall for life. I was ordered back to active duty in 1991 for a short time.

[virginia mountainman]

3. I have been reading some of the comments in other parts of DU about McSames VP pick..

I have been disappointed, that many so called "pro choice" people view her "pro civil" rights stand in regard to the 2nd Amendment , as repugnant.

With that, and Biden's proud and loud, brags about writing the ill conceived law, that proved extremely costly Democrats in the Congress, and Senate for 15 years, I see the makings of a repeat in the future.

The republicans over at the Brady Campaign, are getting all excited, Why?? Because Democrats are starting to do their bidding again..

The DNC have not learned from 1994-2008....So we may be doomed to repeat it over and over again.

[spin]

9. What the Democrats should say...

We have a brand new gun control program. We don't care if honest, responsible citizens own guns but we are going to take them out of the hands of criminals.

Because:

All gun control laws so far only apply to honest citizens.

In too many cities, a honest citizen can't own a weapon even in his house. Being honest he adheres to the law. The criminal, by definition, does not obey laws. Therefore the criminal has a gun and the honest citizen doesn't.

In some states an honest citizen has to register his weapons while a criminal doesn't.

A honest citizen may have to jump through numerous obstacles to be allowed to purchase a weapon in those areas that permit it, but the criminal merely steals or buys one on the black market.

In order to carry a weapon, the honest citizen has to get a concealed permit which in impossible in many areas of the country. The criminal merely sticks his weapon in his pants and off he goes.

The honest citizen can't carry his weapon in many locations such as courthouses, schools, bars, most places of employment and often their parking lots and some stores and their parking lots. The criminal can go wherever he wants. Gun Free Zones are merely targets of opportunity for a nut case or criminal. If he does run into a sign saying "No Firearms" he doesn't stop, mutter a few curses and leave.

If the honest citizen does use his weapon for self defense, he faces intense scrutiny by law enforcement and possible jail time or lawsuits. The criminal merely escapes.

The criminal can carry any weapon he desires. Honest citizens may find themselves limited by laws which ban certain weapons. Washington D.C for example wants to limit honest citizens to revolvers. The criminal carrying a semi-auto handgun with a large capacity magazine has big advantage if he does confront an armed citizen.

******

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe anybody without a criminal record should be able to walk in a gun store and purchase any weapon he desires. Most of the current laws are reasonable. I favor background checks but we do need to find a way to identify people with severe mental problems and restrict those individuals from owning or possessing firearms.

I'm not opposed to the current restrictions on full auto weapons. Full auto weapons are fun to shoot (rock and roll) and yes I have fired some. I'm far more accurate with a semi-auto or a revolver. I don't buy into the "spray and pray" philosophy of shooting. Full auto is useful for crowd suppression, but I really don't expect to get attacked by a crowd.

I also believe that any individual who desires to carry a firearm in public should have a concealed carry permit which requires classroom training and requirements to prove minimal proficiency in gun safety and handling and passing a live fire test at a range. In fact, I would like to see a requirement that anyone who purchases a gun for home protection, hunting or target shooting has to have attended a gun safety class.

*******

But anyone who uses a firearm in a criminal manner needs to serve some very serious time in prison. The sentence should be so long that it serves as a deterrent (say 40 years to life without parole). And anyone who is caught carrying a weapon without a permit should serve a term of 25 years or more.

If we passed draconian laws against people who illegally carry firearms rather then draconian gun control laws that prohibit honest citizens from owning firearms, we could finally find truly effective gun control. With less criminals on the street the demand for guns would plummet.

Criminal drug gangs should be treated as terrorists. In fact that is exactly what they are.

Joe Biden bragging about how he originally wrote the assault weapons ban merely shows that some Democrats have not learned from past failure.

Honest citizens and the guns they own are not the problem. Armed criminals are.

[tburnsten]

5. It isn't about hunting, but it can't hurt

for our partys' leadership to be a little more realistic about the fact that people who like to hunt, like to do it in nice broad unspoiled tracts of wilderness. It only hurts that many of the anti-gun people, particularly those who think that you have to be an active member of some sort of voluntary militia and that hunting is the only legitimate reason to own firearms, especially deer hunting (I'm going to tear some of my thick black hair out the next time I read "you can't shoot a deer with that!")seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that some of the strongest real conservationists are hunters and hunters' advocacy groups. If it weren't for hunts in Africa many wilderness reserves would be totally unstaffed by rangers and poaching would carry on unabated. In many areas, hunting can be a good reason why a particular plot of land should not be developed, even if it has perfectly good ecological reasons to begin with.

Hunting is a good thing, despite its' total lack of connection with the constitution.

[benEzra]

13. The party leadership needs to remember...

that 4 out of 5 U.S. gun owners are nonhunters. Talking up hunting while promising to ban the most popular nonhunting guns in America, again, would be the same strategy followed in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2004.

2006 would be a much better pattern to emulate.

[jody]

16. benEzra, there you go again with facts. When we pro-RKBA types do that we are banished by DU to

the Guns forum and effectively prohibited from discussing one divisive, polarizing political issue that cost we Dems the last two presidential elections.

People can try to limit discussion of RKBA in the General Discussion: Presidential but they can not hide the issue from voters who can mean the difference between an Obama win or loss.

The Dem anti-gun crowd can pay the RKBA piper now or later on election day but they will pay the piper.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[tburnsten]

20. Funny that #18 was deleted

[Otto DeFay]

21. IF we lose the election

by an amount and demographic that indicates it *WAS* the pro gun vote that cost it to us, (can we say 'Ohio'?) what will the Anti's say then to our "Told You So'?
Nahhh....

[SteveM]

22. Yes, but the trouble is the DNC leaves 2A defenders with little room...

This curious gun-control cabal on the bridge of the Democratic Party seeks to restrict/ban gun ownership by citizens for any purpose other than hunting; 2A Democrats can't very well break away from the "leadership" without making it seem the Party is not united.

I think if Obama/Biden win it will be in spite of their stands, and by closer margins than they would wish for because they have failed to take the initiative on 2A. I do think it curious that MSM does next to no coverage on the issue, even when Obama briefly touches on it. This may be a rather crude collusion between MSM, the gun-control groups, and the DNC.

[the_real_38]

17. Right, they expand hunting rights...

... and take our handguns. I'll pass.

[Mercracer]

23. Handgun Hunting

If they were truly in tune with hunters, they would realize that some of us hunt with semiauto handguns and rifles. I deer hunt with a .357 Desert Eagle on occasion. I also hunt with my AR10 and AR15. My .308 AR10 is much more accurate than my 742 .30-06 rifle and both are semiautos. One is accepted as a deer rifle and the other is condemned my many on its "scary offensive" looks alone even though it is just as or even more so suitable for hunting purposes due to its inherent accuracy.

[tburnsten]

24. And if it has the same superb

handling characteristics as the AR-15 does, then it would be a hell of a versatile gun, you could take it into brush or out in the wide open fields of wherever you live. The AR platform is a truly excellent, destined to be classic mainstay of American rifles for all purposes. The first true sport utility rifle.

[jeepnstein]

25. They certainly don't get it.

The 2nd Amendment is all about ownership of the Nation. It ensures we remain citizens and not subjects. I don't understand why we don't pitch the whole notion of what we can do for our Country thing? We own the place, or at least we did until it started to be handed over to the highest bidder.

Hunting hasn't got a thing to do with it.