NRA, guns, and our nominee.

[placton]

It has been suggested elsewhere that we discuss our candidates' approaches to guns. Here's me 2 cents worth:

WE LOST THE GUN DEBATE. It drained millions of potential votes from Gore.

Yeah, it's a nutcase issue in my opinion - I am as anti-gun as one can be; I like the British system best, but hey, that's me.

Here in Michigan, we have an open system of allowing concealed guns for all. It's stupid public policy. But, there have been no major problems since this has been the law.

Lotsa blue collar folks are pro-gun.

We consistently field candidates who are PRO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, a much more horrid position, I believe. Yet they get little grief.

In fact, a pro-gun candidate is more electable. And that's the name of that tune, as far as I am concerned.

I will still work to restrict firearms, but that is not the major issue of these times.

[vi5]

1. A slim majority also support the Iraq war.

Consistently the numbers are over 50%. But when that is pointed out is dismissed and we hear about how we have to stand on principle. I won't argue with that, but I do dislike the picking and choosing of what issues it's o.k. to compromise on for the sake of winning.

For the record I would be fine if our candidate voted for the war (I opposed it) or if he were slightly more pro-gun than I would like (I am personally anti-gun), just as I have accepted that most of our candidates will be to some degree pro-death penalty (I am against in all circumstances).

The only thing I dislike is when anyone (as happens on here pretty frequently) try to tell me what issues should be important to a "liberal" candidate.

All I ask is that we uniformly recognize which issues we are in the minority on and if not completely aquiescing then at least recognizing that a tempered viewpoint or position is probably best electorally speaking.

[placton]

2. How right you are!

We cannot forget that we want the enthusiastic support of anti-gun (let's call us what we are) folks like us. What I suggest is that internecine disputes about this issue is not in our best interest at this time.

[sandnsea]

3. We need to fight harder

We need to remind people that their parents and grandparents didn't have machine guns in the house. We need to put the issue in proper context and fight the NRA propaganda. Kids are dying because of the problem of guns and we shouldn't quit fighting. This isn't about taking everybody's gun away, that's NRA propaganda. It's about restricting guns criminals choose to commit crimes with, just like we restricted machine guns. If pro-gun people don't like the guns that are on the list, suggest their own. But we shouldn't quit this fight, that's what leadership is about.

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. I'm a police officer, and our problem is not a lack of gun-control laws.

We have plenty of effective laws to deal with most of the problems resulting from guns themselves; what we lack are equally-effective laws in dealing with violent, predatory behavior by people who choose to use guns as their weapons of choice, and addressing the social conditions that give rise to such predators in the first place.

[DBoon]

5. As liberals, we would excel in addressing the social conditions

Better schools, after school programs, better early childhood programs, a social support system that helps keep families intact, and more well-paying blue-collar jobs for high school graduates. These would all do more to lower the crime rate than more severe gun laws.

[sandnsea]

6. We aren't enforcing those laws

And that's a big part of the problem because every time somebody tries to enforce a gun law, out comes the NRA screaming 2nd Amendment. There's no reason for alot of these guns to be on the street, no reason for them to be sold with no regulation at all, no reason for people not to be held responsible for keeping them locked up, no reason thousands of deaths each year as a result.

I agree we have to do something about the social conditions that give rise to predators, just like we have to do something about the social conditions that give rise to terrorists. But we wouldn't let a terrorist argue that he has a right to keep anthrax because he has a right to bear arms. And we shouldn't let a potential predator keep weapons known to be used by criminals either. We take the most dangerous weapons out of the market because it flat out doesn't make sense not to. And if you don't like the list we've got, make your own.

[Cuban_Liberal]

7. I beg to differ--- we ARE enforcing those laws.

The problem is not enforcement. I deal with violations of gun laws on an almost daily basis, and I don't know how it is where you live, but here in IL those violations are dealt with severely. We don't need more gun-control laws, what we need are laws that effectively deal with predatory criminal behavior. The guns are not the problem--- gun are a weapon, like any other--- the people using the guns illegally are the problem.

[sandnsea]

8. I disagree

It's like saying nuclear bombs aren't a problem. They are. We need to get them off the planet and there are a whole lot of guns out there that serve no purpose except committing crimes. We don't need them out on the streets either. I don't know how in the world we went from a generation who would have thought it insane to have machine guns in their homes to what we've got now. There's an enormous number of people who would never commit a crime if they didn't have the false power given to them because they have a gun in their hand.

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. It doesn't work that way.

You obviously don't deal with these predators, if you believe that. The only way to get those weapons off the street is to get the people who USE them off the street. I have never taken an illegal weapon off of someone who wasn't already a violent predator.

The weapons follow the thugs, not vice-versa.

[sandnsea]

12. Would they be a thug without the weapon?

I think an enormous number of people wouldn't even consider robbing a gas station or grocery store without a gun in their hand. I don't think you can fix the one without fixing the other. Just like terrorism. You can't fix it by winning "hearts and minds" alone. You can't win it by military and policing alone. You have to do both. You have to get the most dangerous weapons off the planet, use your military and intelligence where needed, and do the necessary humanitarian things as well. Same with criminals.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. Yes, they would be.

If they didn't have a machine pistol, they'd use a semi-auto, and if they didn't have a semi-auto, they'd use a revolver, and if they didn't have a revolver, they'd use a derringer, and if....

They would be thugs, regardless. These are not 'poor, misguided little souls' who suddenly obtain a firearm and turn into predators. By the time they use a gun to commit a crime, they're already thugs.

[sandnsea]

17. No, I so strongly disagree

Guns give people a sense of power, false power. They do things they wouldn't otherwise do without those guns. Most murders aren't rational acts anyway, they're acts of passion at the spur of the moment. If they didn't have the stupid guns, the crimes wouldn't be committed. I'm sure the majority of teen-age gang members who went on some sort of drive-by killing spree wouldn't be on death row or in prison the rest of their life if these stupid guns weren't all over the streets either. Availability is part of the problem.

And I don't know why you added the "poor, misguided little souls" in there when you yourself said we have to do something about the economic and social conditions that create criminals. Personally, I'd rather do nothing about the economic and social conditions and something about getting the guns off the streets than the other way around. If the means to destruction isn't there, individuals will eventually find the right path. Guns makes it way too easy to go down the wrong one.

[Padraig18]

18. That's completely unrealistic.

He's right about punishing predatory behavior; law-abiding gun owners should not be penalized because a predatory class exists who use a weapon it is legal to own.

[sandnsea]

22. Wohoo! A nuclear arms free for all

Let's have that too.

There's no excuse to turn our backs on this issue because Howard Dean said so, none at all.

[Redneck Socialist]

10. Scary

"And we shouldn't let a potential predator keep weapons..." Hmmmm...so now we need to penalize people because they are potentially criminals!? That is precisely what frightens people about the anti gun crowd. You are entering into very dangerous territory when you start limiting people rights based on what they some day, sometime, potentially might do.

As for there being "no reason for them to be sold with no regulation at all," Can you name any other product that I have to get the FBI's permission before I can purchase it? I think we have more than enough rules on the books as it is.

This issue is a loser for us Dem's and if we are interested in winning elections we need to recognize this.

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. Well said!

Sadly, far too many Democrats have a real 'issue' with the idea of private firearms ownership, period.

[billbuckhead]

14. Facts are stubborn things.Gore got more votes than Dem in history

Gore lost because black votes weren't counted in Florida, Tennessee and Arkansas, not because of gun regulation. The vast majority of Democrats and majority of all Americans in poll after poll are for regulation of guns. The USA has the highest murder rate and highest incarceration rate of all so-called advanced nations.

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. We HAVE regulation already

What other perfectly legal item that you can buy do you have to pass an FBI background check for first?

On edit: As to the other issue, look at my avatar; I don't care if 99% of the American public wants more gun control, because the only 'opinion' I care about is the one contained in that document.

[billbuckhead]

20. Jefferson said Constitution needed to be updated. Use muskets.

The Constitution needs updated from time to time and the rest of the civilized world has turned away from the average Joe having military style rifles and sniper rifles. In this new age of terrorism, why shouldn't the government know who's buying guns and ammunition?

[_]

24. Ummmm, okay.

The Constitution needs updated from time to time...

What other amendments would you suggest for an overhaul? Or is it only the ones you find distasteful?


and the rest of the civilized world

and we should emulate the rest of the world because?


has turned away from the average Joe having military style rifles and sniper rifles.

Define "military style rifles" and "sniper rifles". Be clear and concise. Elaborate even more as to why the average Joe shouldn't have acess to them.


In this new age of terrorism, why shouldn't the government know who's buying guns and ammunition?

Can you say hysteria? What terrorism? What guns and ammunition?
What else should the government know? Anything can be justified
given the circumstances and the sheeples willing to be swayed by a false sense of security.

The Patriot Act is obscene enough and you want to expand it? Yes, I'm well aware of Ashcrofts response to possible terrorist attacks and the exclusion of firearms laws and ownership. I just can't fathom any reason to make bad legislation even worse.

[w4rma]

15. PARTY HANDLING OF ISSUES : Gun policy, GOP-favored: 48%, Dem-favored: 39%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr040115.asp

[billbuckhead]

21. And 12% saw no difference, so 51% are OK with Dem gun policy

Your own poll proves my point. Add the 12% to the 39% and it's a 50-50 issue. Besides, Gallup polls are notoriuosly proRepuKKKe and it doesn't even mentioned how the question is framed or who they asked.

[Redneck Socialist]

23. 66% think there are enough gun laws.

We can play the survey game all night long, but when it comes down to it most folks are not anti gun.

http://client.xntec.com/clientpages/oleary/report0104.html

[mitchum]

19. I agree with you 100%