“Guns and Values: Democrats can grab the center of the gun debate.

[jody]

But it`s framing the message that matters.”

Go to the above article to read suggestions for the Democratic Party on the following issues.

Argument # 1 "Americans have a right to own a gun to protect themselves and their families."

Argument # 2 "The right to own a gun does not extend to terrorists, criminals, and illegal aliens."

Argument # 3 "We need to make the instant check system truly instant and accurate."

Argument # 4 "Families attending gun shows should not have to rub shoulders with criminals because Congress mistakenly left open the gun-show loophole."

Argument # 5 "I don't support gun control. I support gun safety."

Argument # 6 "I will champion New Hampshire gun values."

Argument # 7 "Enforce the gun laws! We have to close the gap between the gun crimes that are committed and those that are prosecuted. Enough talk, we need action."

Argument # 8 "We must safeguard our rights, bring traditional values to Washington, close the loopholes, and enforce the laws we need to stop criminals."

Argument # 9 "I am opposed to the extremists on both sides. I reject the far-right groups that think gun ownership is an absolute right and the far left that thinks it is an absolute wrong."

Argument # 10 "I support gun owner rights, but, with all due respect, the NRA is wrong to oppose President Bush's renewal of the assault weapons ban, wrong to support the restoration of gun rights for convicted felons, and wrong to want to repeal the instant background check law."

[jhfenton]

1. I mostly agree.

I disagree with number 10 regarding the AWB. The AWB is a meaningless piece of cosmetic fluff that does nothing except inconvenience law-abiding gun owners.

I also disagree with the proposition in number 4 that there is a gun-show loophole. Now if the instant check system is made truly instant and accurate (#3) and available to the public for a truly nominal fee, then I would have little objection to requiring a background check for all non-family private transactions. To buy my vote, though, you'd have to permit intrastate gun purchases from any FFL. Right now, I can't drive 10 miles away and buy a handgun because it's in KY and I live in OH. That's silly.

[jody]

2. Understand and agree. Still, we cannot let the gun-control/grabber

minority cost the Democratic Party another election.

[jhfenton]

3. Absolutely

I salute the common sense approach of the DLC on this -- and many other -- issues.

[billbuckhead]

4. Where your proof we're a minority? The NRA?

The United States is the only advanced nation with close to unrestricted gun sales and enjoys the high murder rate that goes with it. Far more Americans are killed by reckless gun ownership than by terrorists. As George Bush's sun sets in Iraq and his election can only be by illegal methods, why should Dems give into the NRA gunthugs at the expense of a loyal constituentcy? Is the Democratic party once again going to pink tutu out on it's supporters under pressure from the rightwingers?

[jhfenton]

5. Correlation does not imply causation.

Try again.

[TexasMexican]

6. ...

Actually more Americans are killed by reckless drivers than by gun oweners.

So should we ban cars?

Guns dont cause crime. Isnt crime caused by poverty and all those other factors.

Its true that criminals might use guns, but even if law abiding citizens dont own guns criminals would still use them.

What "loyal constituancy" is going to be given up if democrats support the right to keep and bear arms?

[solinvictus]

7. Constituency??

And 80 million gun owners are not important to electoral politics? The Million Mommies, the Brady Bunch, VPC, etc was instrumental in costing the Dems 2000.

[DoNotRefill]

11. hogwash.

"The United States is the only advanced nation with close to unrestricted gun sales and enjoys the high murder rate that goes with it."

The US murder rate, withoug homicides that involve guns in ANY way, is higher than the other "advanced" nation's homicide rate. Unless the general presence of guns in America causes homicides even when firearms are not present (the old "I was thinking that I wished I had a gun when I strangled her, so it's the gun's fault..." scenario) at the crime scene, your statement is bunk.

"why should Dems give into the NRA gunthugs at the expense of a loyal constituentcy? "

Because, for example, there are a whole bunch of gun-owning blue-collar union folks out there (another loyal Democratic constitutency, much larger than the anti-gun constituency) that are completely turned off by the anti-gun message. If all gun owners were uniformly Republican, you'd have a point. That is emphatically NOT the case. By pushing an anti-gun agenda, you're pissing off a very large historically Democratic constituency.

[beevul]

10. No on 10

"I disagree with number 10 regarding the AWB. The AWB is a meaningless piece of cosmetic fluff that does nothing except inconvenience law-abiding gun owners."

I agree completely.

In addition, they do not duct-tape the mouths of every person entering a theater on the grounds that somebody is sure to screw up and shout "fire" if they don't. In First Amendment terms, this would be called "prior restraint" and is simply not allowed by the courts. Rather, the laws rely on punishing afterwards the rare, irresponsible citizen who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater. Yes, one may be punished afterwards for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, but not prevented from possessing the means to do so in advance.

[Paladin]

12. Typical

So, as far as you're concerned, there's nothing proactive that can be done regarding the disgraceful amount of violence involving the use of guns in this country (by the way, I'd love to see some backup for your novel concept of applying prior restraint to firearms acquisition).

Same old stance from you RKBAers. AFTER some nutcase easily assembles a bunch of guns and ammo, AFTER said nutcase takes said guns/ammo to a school or office and turns it into a slaughterhouse, and AFTER said nutcase, as usual, stuffs a gun in his mouth and sends himself to hell, THEN, by God, we get to throw the book at him. And you guys are left to once again whimper that there wasn't a single, solitary thing that could have been done, and such violence is just the price you are more than willing for OTHERS to pay so that you can have all the fucking guns you want. Thanks ever so much......

[TexasMexican]

14. Well...

That is the reason we want people to have the right to keep and bear arms. So that if anything like that happens atleast the people being attacked will have some recourse.

[CarinKaryn]

18. Arm the kindergardners!

Its the only chance they'll have to fight back.

Oh, you didn't mean kindergardners? Ok,
Arm the sixth graders! It's the only chance they'll have to fight back.
Oh, you ment High schoolers? Arm the highschoolers!
Oh, you ment arm the teachers? Arm the ... ok forget it. You mean arm everyone so everyone can fight back against everyone.

What a re-diculous idea. But a standard mantra of the gun huggers.

[TexasMexican]

23. fighting back

Whats so "re-diculous" about being able to fight back?

[beevul]

15. Umm....

"and such violence is just the price you are more than willing for OTHERS to pay so that you can have all the fucking guns you want"

That sounds remarkably similar to:

and such bans are just the price you are more than willing for EVERYONE to pay so that you can grab all the fucking guns you want.:evilgrin:

Now, the post you responded to was about the aw ban. I can not support a ban that has absolutely NO effect on crime, doesnt really ban anything, and reeks of prior restraint. Incidentally, I own 3 guns, and have no ambition to have more than 3.(2 antique family heirlooms and 1 handgun)

"So, as far as you're concerned, there's nothing proactive that can be done regarding the disgraceful amount of violence involving the use of guns in this country (by the way, I'd love to see some backup for your novel concept of applying prior restraint to firearms acquisition)."

I'm not sold on the "disgraceful amount of violence involving the use of guns in this country", noone ever wants to discuss it while keeping in mind total amount of guns or total amount of gun owners in this country(I wonder why that is? :wtf: ). Theres plenty that can be done WITHOUT banning guns. As many here have said, there are social and economic reasons why violence happens, so deal with THOSE reasons, and leave law abiding gun owners alone. Try eliminating the CAUSE of violence, rather that assuming that anyone who wants something you don't is a gun nut and therefore pro-violence, or assuming that if you remove the tools sometimes used in violence, that violence will disapear like water in the arizona desert. It won't. If thats not enough for you, I'm sorry. Would you actually advocate duct-tapeing the mouths of every person entering a theater on the grounds that somebody is sure to screw up and shout "fire"? (please answer) I mean, it COULD be argued that speech has killed alot more folks than guns. I'd love to see what other issues you suggest ignoring prior restraint on.

And, I'm not referring to the "aquisition" of the firearm, I'm referring to the RESTRAINT on possesion/ownership applied by a ban PRIOR to doing anything wrong to merit it.Or duct-tapeing the mouths of every person entering a theater on the grounds that somebody is sure to screw up and shout "fire". ITS ALL THE SAME! Its all the same, dangerous and harmful no matter how its used, unlike a firearm.


Prior restraint doesn't seem much like a democratic or liberal principal to me. Is it only ok with guns in your opinion?

Much like JH:
"I certainly won't vote for Bush next November, but I simply will not ever vote for an anti-RKBA candidate of any party. If necessary, I'll cast a third-party vote again" or not vote at all. Simple as that.

[beevul]

16. Reality

"AFTER said nutcase takes said guns/ammo to a school or office and turns it into a slaughterhouse"


Reality suggests something more along the lines of:

AFTER said nutcase takes said guns/ammo to a school or office even though they're verry verry likely banned there(criminal safe zones), and is able to turn it into a slaughterhouse because all the victims are disarmed for "their own good" or "for their own safety", and cannot protect themselves.


That would be more realistic.

/sarcasmon But I'm sure THATS never happened....:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

17. So because the RKBA crowd is paranoid

we all have to run around heeled all the time to protect ourselves frrom the criminals and lunatics the corrupt gun industry is busy arming?

Count me out. I'd rather work for common sense gun control, as a solid majority of Americans want.

[beevul]

22. Who?

Who came up with the initial "AFTER said nutcase takes said guns/ammo to a school or office and turns it into a slaughterhouse" paranoid example? Was it the RKBA crowd?

[MrBenchley]

24. You mean you think that doesn't happen?

That's so cute...

[beevul]

25. uh...no

"You mean you think that doesn't happen?"

I KNOW it happens, it's just that:

"AFTER said nutcase takes said guns/ammo to a school or office even though they're verry verry likely banned there(criminal safe zones), and is able to turn it into a slaughterhouse because all the victims are disarmed for "their own good" or "for their own safety", and cannot protect themselves."

is a more accurate and truthful way to describe it.

Edit: Please answer the questions.

Who came up with the initial "AFTER said nutcase takes said guns/ammo to a school or office and turns it into a slaughterhouse" paranoid example? Was it the RKBA crowd?

[MrBenchley]

27. Again...

So my wife and I and everyone I know have to run arround heeled at work all day because the corrupt gun industry sets public policy to allow it to continue selling to criminals and loonies?

No thanks. I'll keep working for common sense gun control.

[beevul]

28. And again....

"So my wife and I and everyone I know have to run arround heeled at work all day because the corrupt gun industry sets public policy to allow it to continue selling to criminals and loonies?"

No. Thats not how it works.

Basically , in a nutshell, "public policy" has little to no effect on "criminals and loonies", so "my wife and I and everyone I know"
should come to terms with it. Once you do, maybe you'll change your mind. Whether you do or not, 1 thing remains clear.

The anti-guners want to make the choice for everyone how that potential "AFTER said nutcase" scenario plays out, while pro gunners want the freedom for EVERYONE to choose for themselves whether they be prepared, without forcing anyone to make a choice to carry.

PRO-CHOICE on firearms

[MrBenchley]

29. Too too funny....

"Basically , in a nutshell, "public policy" has little to no effect on "criminals and loonies", so "my wife and I and everyone I know"
should come to terms with it."
Ah, RKBA "logic." Damn glad I don't have any of whatever the hell that is.

"pro gunners want the freedom for EVERYONE to choose for themselves whether they be prepared"
Prepared to defend themselves against the lunatics and crrooks that the corrupt gun industry has already armed.

[beevul]

35. No

Not:

"Prepared to defend themselves against the lunatics and crrooks that the corrupt gun industry has already armed."

More like:

Prepared to defend themselves against the lunatics and crooks that "public policy" CAN-NOT prevent from doing what they are going to do. Like "public policy" in DC or Chicago, for example. Hows that "public policy" working out in those areas? Or how about that "gun free zone" in schools "policy"...hows that been working since its inception?


"Ah, RKBA "logic." Damn glad I don't have any of whatever the hell that is."

I'm not glad that you don't, but I'll agree, you don't. So we can agree to disagree on this topic then.Don't sweat it though, I'm sure there are plenty of things we agree on outside this topic.

[MrBenchley]

37. Hahahahahaha....

Let's get rid of laws against bank robbery too, since banks still get robbed.

RKBA "logic." Damn glad I don't have any of whatever the hell that is.

[beevul]

39. Apples and oranges

You compare banning an action(bank robbery)with banning an inanimate object(guns in Dc/chicago/schools). I suppose you could say that its "possesion" of a firearm, and therefore also an action, however,
banning bank robbery doesn't leave any victims defenseless now does it?

You never did answer these questions:

"Hows that "public policy" working out in those areas? Or how about that "gun free zone" in schools "policy"...hows that been working since its inception?"

I'm all ears.

[MrBenchley]

41. RKBA "logic" or whatever the hell it is.

Glad I ain't got any.

[jhfenton]

40. False analogy

Actually, by the anti-RKBA logic we should outlaw banking for law-abiding citizens because bank robbers keep robbing them. If there were no banks, then there would be nothing to rob.

The anti-gunners want to criminalize something that harms no one to prevent other people from committing separate crimes. We don't do that in this country.

[MrBenchley]

42. Who are you trying to kid?

"The anti-gunners want to criminalize something that harms no one"
Yeah, surrrrrrrre.. And Wayne LaPierre is the Queen of the May.

[Lefty48197]

8. The far right wing positions taken by the NRA are out of the mainstream

It's we Democrats who ARE in the center. Try again.

[jody]

9. Sorry but we Democrats "respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and

legitimate gun owners" and that is an unqualified statement.

It is gun-grabbers like Democrat Diane Feinstein, Republican Sarah Brady, and others who have fostered the notion that the Democratic Party wants to ban handguns and long guns.

The Democratic Party has to continually and very aggressively denounce the gun-ban image the gun-grabbers have used to malign the Democratic Party.

[jhfenton]

13. Amen, jody.

Let's take the Democratic party back from the likes of Feinstein and Schumer. (Sadly, we could name others.)

[Paladin]

19. You Could Name Others, All Right

"Democrats" like you and Jody never seem to tire of publicly trashing prominent Democrats who don't exhibit attitudes on guns that are NRA-friendly enough to suit you. Face it, you're carrying the other side's water on this issue.....

[MrBenchley]

20. "take the Democratic party back"

Yeah, back to the days when Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were Democrats.......

[jody]

21. Gun-grabbers are sad because Blanco won in LA on a pro-RKBA platform

Kathleen Blanco Wins Louisiana Gov. Race

QUOTE
By most measures the two candidates were practically ideological soul mates, devout Catholics who oppose affirmative action, abortion, gun control and higher taxes while embracing steps to improve schools, health care and the state's anemic economy. By a narrow margin, Jindal was the more conservative, opposing abortion even in cases of rape and incest and in some instances when a mother's life is in danger. He also opposed legislation requiring helmets for motorcyclists, insisting it should be a matter of personal responsibility, not law.
UNQUOTE

With help from Democrat Diane Feinstein, Republican Sarah Brady, and the gun-grabbers, Blanco could easily have been an also ran.

Gun-grabbers need to live with Blanco's successful race as a Democratic candidate to become the first woman governor of Louisiana.

[MrBenchley]

26. Too frigging funny, Jody...

The Republican who lost was even LOUDER about gun rights...but he couldn't get the gun nuts to vote for him because his skin was brown.

"With help from Democrat Diane Feinstein, Republican Sarah Brady, and the gun-grabbers, Blanco could easily have been an also ran. "
Surrrrrrrrrrre....

[demsrule4life]

30. When Kennedy said the other day that Dems would not

approve any Neandthals appointed by Bush did he mean people of color? Just wondering since they are fighting against mostly minority appointees.

"Kennedys car has killed more people then any of my privatly owned firearms"

[MrBenchley]

31. No, but thanks for passing along another right wing lie

"Just wondering since they are fighting against mostly minority appointees."
Who is "they," dems?

"Kennedys car has killed more people then any of my privatly owned firearms"
Gee, another member of the RKBA crowd slurring a respected Democrat...who is surprised?

[demsrule4life]

33. Stating a fact is not a slur

Not telling any lies here.

[MrBenchley]

34. Yeah, surrrrrrrre.....

[jhfenton]

32. False accusations of racism

"he couldn't get the gun nuts to vote for him because his skin was brown."

This is another unfounded, false accusation of racism. The mostly Republican participants on packing.org and other gun forums were strongly behind Bobby Jindal.

You should be ashamed, but I suspect that's beyond you.

[MrBenchley]

36. Gee, fenton

Nothing unfounded about it.

"The mostly Republican participants on packing.org and other gun forums"
You mean swell folks like storm88front here?

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=718&st=15&hl=

"You should be ashamed"
Gee, fenton, I'm not the one lined up behind David Duke and John AshKKKroft. I'm the one lined up with sane people like Carolyn McCarthy, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Charles Rangel, Jon Corzine, Frank Lautenberg, Dick Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich, Tim Johnson, John Lewis, John Edwards, Maxine Waters, Barbara Mikulski Eleanor Holmes Norton, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Nydia M. Velázquez, Nancy Pelosi, Wesley Clark, Steny Hoyer, Jack Reed, Joe Biden, Elijah Cummings, Bart Stupak, Robert Matsui, Jim Clyburn, Patrick Kennedy, Bob Graham, Cherie Trine, Ron Wyden, Major Owens, Henry Waxman, Molly Inins, Bob Herbert, the ACLU, the AAP, the NAACP, the Children's Defense Fund, the Joyce Foundation, Americans for Democratic Action and lots of others.

[jhfenton]

38. You repeatedly stoop to accusation of racism

because you don't have anything meaningful to say.

storm88front is an open and obvious white supremacist who has posted on that board all of 7 times. I don't frequent that board, so I don't know what its rules are, but most gun boards do not permit such behavior anymore than DU does.

Here, see for yourself what happens when one of these guys pops up on www.packing.org:

If You Live In Lousiana You Should Be Voting Today

You should hang around www.packing.org. You might learn something.

[MrBenchley]

43. Again, who are you trying to kid?

"storm88front is an open and obvious white supremacist who has posted on that board all of 7 times."
A-a-a-a-and how often did his fellow gun nuts remonstrate with him? It took me all of three minutes to find a half dozen similar messages...and nary a gun totin' liberal speaking up to condemn them...least of all the guy who opened the door to the self-styled "land of reason".

"You should hang around www.packing.org."
No thanks. I'll stick with the sane decent people of the world.

[demsrule4life]

44. Just remember that he is always right and never wrong

it is a complete waste of time to attempt to debate with him. If all sane RKBA types would just ignore him we could have decent debates without every thread turning into a flame war.

[MrBenchley]

45. Gee, dems, I'm not passing along dittohead slurs

"Just wondering since they are fighting against mostly minority appointees."
Who is "they," dems? And are you really trying to pretend that the fillibuster is based on bigotry?

[jody]

46. An effective repellent for Chihuahuas with diarrhea is

[MrBenchley]

47. Gee, chihuahuas with diarrhea

wonder if they're the ones who contradict themselves....

"jody  (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-08-03 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Please provide a link where I criticized the party "platform language as
being anti-RKBA". I have stated that the platform contains statements in other sections that lead people to misunderstand the National Democratic Party's position on RKBA that I quoted above. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=21126&mesg_id=21254&page=

"jody  (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-08-03
One problem is that the DNC Platform is written with so much anti-RKBA venom"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7331#8580