Gun Lobby Racks Up Legislative Gains Across US (Reuters)

[FatSlob]

Commentary: The gun lobby is certainly a powerful voting block. It is good to see our party finally courting it. Unfortunately, the party is not strong enough on gun rights yet. However, we are heading in the right direction.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5720655§ion=news


An excerpt:

Gun proponents have worked hard for 15 years and with considerable success to win the right for Americans to carry concealed weapons.

In 1986, only eight states were obliged by law to issue citizens who requested them licenses to carry such weapons. That number has grown to 38, according to the NRA.

Ohio's law took effect in January. Last year alone, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, where legislators overrode a veto by Gov. Bob Holden, passed "right to carry" laws for applicants who pass a gun training course and a background check.

"QUIET REVOLUTION"

"We have seen the normalization of the idea that Americans may carry concealed weapons. It is a quiet revolution and it will bring about a certain culture change as we become accustomed to the idea of people in urban as well as rural areas carrying weapons around with them," said Robert Cottrol of the George Washington University law school.

[MrBenchley]

1. In other words...

these bills have been snuck in under the radar, and in some cases, against the voters' wishes....

[Bowline]

2. In other words,

Legislators are realizing that, in order to keep their jobs, they'd better start to recognize the inalienable rights of their constituents.

[enfield collector]

3. in other words

if we want to govern instead of oppose we'd better ditch the gun grabbing platform.

[Bowline]

4. Yup.

That sums it up quite nicely.

[CO Liberal]

5. We Never HAD A Gun-Grabbing Platform

If you'd bother to read them.

[MrBenchley]

8. Why do I suspect that the actual Democratic platform

doesn't matter much to our new friends?

[iverglas]

20. or perhaps

has simply always been a matter of mystery to them?

[MrBenchley]

21. Could be...

SSDD

[jtb33]

9. Correct...

"We" didn't, but many of the top (and prominant) Democratic leaders have publicly stated that they would ban all guns in the hands of private citizens if they could get away with it. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) comes to mind.

[OpSomBlood]

12. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in."

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

If you don't want people to think that Democrats are coming for their guns, it would be beneficial for prominent Democratic legislators to stop saying things like this...particularly when they have been known to carry a gun for self-defense.

[MrBenchley]

17. Wow....more Democrat bashing from our "pro gun democrats"

who'd have thunk it...especially since it's been shown to be bullshit so often.

[OpSomBlood]

19. Did Feinstein not say that? How is it bullshit?

n/t

[CO Liberal]

23. But It's Not a Party Platform Plank

And never has been.

And it's intellectually dishonest for you pro-gunners to say otherwise.

After all, David Duke and Ted Nugent are racists They're also Republicans. But no one here automatically assumes that all Republicans are racists.

[jtb33]

24. You're right...

Which is why I said that "we" didn't (I should have emphasized that by "we", I meant the DP). However, I did think that it was rather important to mention that at least one very outspoken and well-known member of our party has publicly stated that they only reason she hasn't persued an outright ban on ALL guns in the hands of private citizens is that she can't get 51 votes in the Senate for it. I think she needs to realign herself with the official party platform on the "guns" issues.

Edited to add that I bring it up because MANY people listen to the likes of Feinstein and just equate her position on guns as the "standard" of the Democratic party since she's by far the most outspoken and vocal Democrat on the gun related issues.

[MrBenchley]

26. Wow, another attack on a Democrat from our "pro gun democrats"

and the same bullshit, at that....

Of course, you'll be happy to show us the context from which that quote was lifted....

[jtb33]

27. Okay...

It was an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes" on February 5th, 1995. The exact quote from Dianne Feinstein (verbatim) is:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

[iverglas]

29. c'mon, don't be shy

Aren't ya gonna give us the LINK to the place where you got that direct quote?

Tell us you heard it and wrote it faithfully down, back in 1995, if you like. Otherwise, I at least would love to know what yer secondary source was.

[jtb33]

30. Heh...

Are you insinuating that she DIDN'T say that, or are you just trying to play devil's advocate? I take your comments to mean that you think that she did *not* say what I quoted above... correct?

Boy, finding a transcript from a single "news" program from 9 years ago probably isn't going to work without going to a library or something.

[iverglas]

31. "correct"?

Are you insinuating that she DIDN'T say that, or are you just trying to play devil's advocate? I take your comments to mean that you think that she did *not* say what I quoted above... correct?

Not remotely.

If you can't imagine why I might want to see a link to the place where you fetched the quotation from, well, it ain't my job to tell you.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ajdlro/cabaret.html

Brian on the pronunciation of "phlegm": P H is always pronounced as F, and, uh, you don't sound the G.

Natalia Landauer (Marisa Berenson): Then why are they putting the G, please?

Brian: That's, that's a very good question, but rather difficult to explain.

Sally: Try, Brian.

Brian: Well, uh, it's just there.

Natalia: So, Mr. Professor, you do not know?

Brian: No.

Natalia: Then I am sorry. I cannot help you.

It's a pretty straightforward question; shouldn't it be pretty easy to answer?


Boy, finding a transcript from a single "news" program from 9 years ago probably isn't going to work without going to a library or something.

Try that again. I didn't ask you for proof of the existence of a primary source. I asked you to name your secondary source. Unless you're claiming to remember it verbatim from having seen/heard the primary source, of course.

[OpSomBlood]

33. Another brilliant Feinsteinism:

"Semi-automatic assault weapons which fire up to 250 rounds of ammunition within seconds and without warning are weapons of war that do not belong on the streets of our communities."

I'm wondering exactly how it is mathematically possible to fire 250 rounds "within seconds and without warning" when a semi-automatic weapon fires one shot per trigger pull.

How many seconds is she talking about? 250? 500?

Or was she lying in order to further demonize those evil weapons with bayonet lugs and folding stocks?

[jtb33]

39. Sure...

Actually, as I am sure you already knew, there are a LOT of sources and places to find the quote, and 99% of them are all right-wing, pro-gun web sites. As such, the typical mantra of those who support taking away our 2nd Amendment freedoms is that such web sites distort the facts. However, you don't deny that she said exactly that, nor do I, so we both agree that yes, she did say the quote that I attributed to her above, so it's a moot argument. Obviously, the only reason you see the quote from Feinstein predominantly on PRO-GUN sites is because her statement is too extreme to put on sites like VPC or HCI.

Here's where I garnered it off of originally, which, coincidentally, contains a transcript from that 60 Minutes show in 1995:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vzEw5kVPFEwJ:ibgwww.colorado.edu/~wilsonsm/feinstein.ps

(same as above, but in "PS" ? format) http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/~wilsonsm/feinstein.ps

[iverglas]

40. gee, and still I wonder

Here's where I garnered it off of originally, which, coincidentally, contains a transcript from that 60 Minutes show in 1995: ...

... how you knew what you were looking for, "originally".

[jtb33]

42. huh?

I knew about it because I had seen it quoted and referenced quite a few times in coversations I've had. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

[MrBenchley]

43. Probably took a lot of hunting before

he could find the quote in a place that wasn't saturated with dittohead rubbish...

[iverglas]

44. I know I sure can't. (nm)

[jtb33]

45. Well...

Isn't that what you were asking for?

[MrBenchley]

46. Yes, and as you can see

it fooled us completely. I was utterly taken in by that brilliant maneuver, and I'll bet Iverglas was too.

[iverglas]

28. y'know, it's one thing

... for a Democrat to disagree with another Democrat on a policy issue.

It seems to me like quite another thing to refer to said other Democrat as "the likes of ______".

... I bring it up because MANY people listen to the likes of Feinstein ...

Maybe it's just my ear, but I hear that as kinda, well, personally insulting to the person being referred to, not just a policy disagreement.

And me, I'm not in the habit of directing personal insults in public at leading representatives of the party I support (and, in my case, am a member of).

But maybe that's just a Canadian thing.

[MrBenchley]

37. You will notice, however,

that our pro gun democrats NEVER talk about the "likes of AshKKKroft" or the "likes of the Second Amendment Caucus."

[MrBenchley]

25. Speaking of that...

"DETROIT (AP) -- Democrats on Wednesday denounced a Republican lawmaker quoted in a newspaper as saying the GOP would fare poorly in this year's elections if it failed to "suppress the Detroit vote."
State Rep. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, acknowledged using "a bad choice of words" but said his remark shouldn't be construed as racist. "

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw101420_20040721.htm

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[enfield collector]

34. well we sure fooled about 99% of the population into thinking we did.

[DavidMS]

6. I wouldn't go quite that far...

or elected leaders need to understand what is good for NYC is not necessarily good for Deadfish, Idaho. Taking a hard anti-gun line is a great way for Democratic Politicians to get beaten by conservatives. It distracts from our class based message.

To fully engage in read-meat class-war politics that we can use to beat cultural conservatives laying off gun control is a good thing.

I just doubt the effectiveness of gun control to substantively effect crime rates.

Opposing gun control as a classist plot against trade unionists, poor people and socialists is good. Pointing out that even discussing it is a waste of perfectly good effort that could be better used to Nuke NAFTA from Orbit, Knee Cap the WTO and do something substantive to solve the Gordian knot of illegal immigration (pro-immigrant, anti-exploitative). And wrap in barbed wire and shoot into the sun some unspecified war criminals.

[iverglas]

22. my unsolicited advice

if we want to govern instead of oppose we'd better ditch the gun grabbing platform.

I'd also recommend that you ditch women's reproductive rights and membership in the UN and legal aid for people accused of criminal offences and the due process rights of unpopular minorities.

In fact, I'd recommend that you do all them *first*, since doing any one of them is far more likely to get you the votes you need in order to get elected than abandoning support for firearms control -- and so obviously doing the whole lot of them would make you a shoe-in.

I just don't know why you folks waste your time on these piddling few gun-owner votes when you could go for that whole great big anti-choice demographic, just for starters ...

[enfield collector]

38. or how about we offer people

the same freedom of choice in defensive rights that we do in other areas. wouldn't want to disenfranchise that piddling 80 million gun owner votes.

[iverglas]

41. hmmmmm

....................non-responsive.

[MrBenchley]

7. Pimp for the gun lobby....

you mean...

[Bowline]

10. How about "Pimp for the Constitution"?

Or "Pimp for civil rights"?

[MrBenchley]

11. The Constitution doesn't need pimps like John AshKKKroft

and owning a popgun is "a civil right" the way Faux Noise is "fair and blalanced"

[Bowline]

13. Apparently you've read a different Constitution than the rest of us.

N/T

[MrBenchley]

15. Not the one John AshKKKroft and our "enthusiasts"

are hallucinating about.

I've read the actual constitution...know what the courts have said about it too...and I know who's been lying about the Second Amendment as well....

[OpSomBlood]

14. Yeah, Malcolm X sure felt that way.

n/t

[MrBenchley]

16. Gee, whatever happened to Malcolm?

Oh yeah, some fucking imbecile with a gun shot him...

[OpSomBlood]

32. Yeah, it was the gun's fault.

At least you clarified that it was the fucking imbecile who did the killing.

[MrBenchley]

36. Oh, the poor vicitmized gun!

[CO Liberal]

35. Until He Was Shot....

[Van23]

47. All I can say is

Thank God!!! FROM MY COLD DEAD (LIBERAL) HANDS, BABY!!