Gun Control, the one issue we have to lose.

[patcox2]

This is the one more than any other that kills us with the Nascar dads. The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies, and they oppose almost every democrat.

I am sick of the democrats clinging to the issues that are destroying us with the very people who would otherwise naturally ally themselves with the democrats, the rural poor and middle classes.

Who fucking cares about guns? I don't. Just how big an anti-gun constituency are we gaining (12 people?) in ecxchange for alienating tens of millions?

Some prominent dems are going soft on the right to choose in an effort to court the middle. Thats a much more critical issue to me, one much more central to democratic principles, and one well worth fighting for (women outnumber men, after all, there's a lot to be gained).

But the guns, what the fuck, who cares, its anti-lbertarian, its the epitome of "mommy state" stuff, lots of people hate gun control, far fewer live for it, and where are they going to go anyway?

[afdip]

1. we all remember how well kerry hunting with a shotgun went over. . .

[patcox2]

2. Only because they didn't beleive it.

And he waffled anyway.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. What did he waffle?

I keep hearing that Kerry "waffled".

I thought it was just a Republican talking point.

--p!

[patcox2]

9. Appearing witha gun, showing your a hunter

While supporting "reasonable" restrictions on handguns and automatice weapons is basically a straddle.

For the other side its pure black and white.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. That other side is brainless

Well, their political leaders are.

Try this slogan:
"Libbruls want me to be informed if my 16-year-old daughter gets an aspirin, but not an abortion!"

And this one:
"Gunn Nutts want me to get a license if I get a dog, but not if I stockpile handguns and rifles!"

Kerry couldn't win with them. Hell, if Ted Nugent became a Democrat, they'd say he was faking it, too.

--p!

[MercutioATC]

31. Gun control to them is as abortion is to us.

How many Dems do you know that would feel comfortable with "You can get an abortion, but only after a mandatory waiting period and a check to make sure you fit OUR criteria (and only then after jumping through a few procedural hoops)?

To most of the pro-gun people I know, gun ownership is really THAT big an issue.

[Dogmudgeon]

37. Abortion is already like that

It is very difficult to get a third-trimester abortion, a lot of Democrats and liberals have trouble with D-and-X procedures (so-called "partial birth" abortions), and if you're under 18, you need parental signatures, provided you survive the beating and being kicked out of the house. Most of the "red" states have a large number of additional hoops, including getting a partner's signature, getting second opinions, mandatory counseling, watching films of abortions being performed, etc.

There is MUCH less nonsense of this sort required for gun ownership, even in the bluest of areas.

In addition, abortion is not something that happens randomly, like the irresponsible use of a gun. Sexual roulette is usually played by two people, not one person against the world. A little education goes a long way, whether it's for sexuality, or for gun owners. I note that the Right opposes education for both sexuality and fundamental gun law, even with opt-out loopholes for those who invoke God, unless it is from an "official" conservative source, like the NRA or the local church.

Also, the number of those gun-ownership "hoops" can be reduced, but the argument is framed in absolutes, so there is likely to be no action on them. They are too useful to the NRA and other pro-gun groups who want "martyrs". Yet it is far less onerous to be denied a gun for 72 hours than to be denied access to health care, especially if other time-limiting laws are at work.

My point is that gun ownership is really THAT big an issue because of fifty years of lies. The story that the Communists would round people up based on their gun registry records was useful until the 1970s. Fifty years of poke-in-the-eye politics from select pro-gun people has led to poke-in-the-eye politics from an increasing number of the anti-gun people, like the recent attempt to ban all firearms ownership in one of the cities in Northern California. It's become just another political hot item, which almost always works to the advantage of the Republican/Conservative movement.

Worse yet, it marginalizes liberal/progressive/Democratic proponents of responsible gun ownership and use, just as the anti-choice movement has made Americans subject to far more sexual superstition and ignorance than people in Europe or Asia.

These are troublesome issues, but they can become winning issues if we're willing to "re-calibrate" our efforts. No one need be denied use of firearms unless they're incompetent, irresponsible, or violent. Well-tested legal definitions exist for these conditions. And we all suffer for every day that ideology comes first.

--p!

[MercutioATC]

41. I know...I was comparing importance to the two groups.

Also, I think gun issues have less to do with fear than freedom. People don't like being told whether or not they can own guns (I don't own a gun, but I support others' rights to have them).

This Second Amendment argument is bull, though. It was written in a different time when the populace was expected to actively participate in the defense of the country. That's obviously no longer the case.

[Romulus]

47. do away with 3d amendment?

Since the government doesn't "quarter troops in houses" anymore? (at least not in a while . . .)

[MercutioATC]

53. I'm not advocating "doing away with" anything.

I'm just stating that the 2nd Amendment doesn't (IMO) relate to private firearm ownership in this day and age.

(and yes, I know that the SCOTUS disagrees with me)

[LostinVA]

57. Yup. What you said. And abortion isn't a public safety issue

[jackbourassa]

45. Correctomondo MerctioATC

What pisses me off about those who advocate gun control is that they don't seem to really care one way or another. It's a cultural thing, and they just never grew up with guns - so they don't mind banning them or curtailing their use. But for people who did grow up with them, this is A HUGE ISSUE. It's their culture. Their way of life.

[LostinVA]

56. That isn't waffling, it;s being a responsible gun owner

[DonP]

12. Not just a talking point

The only vote that Kerry and Edwards left the campaign trail to fly back to DC cast was to renew the "so called" assault weapons ban.

To do that, then to show up with a shiny new shotgun and camo for a goose shooting photo op didn't impress the gun owners that were on the fence.

Only about 20% of American Gun Owners hunt and the last time I looked a lot of Dems (30% or so?), myself included, are gun owners, target shooters, collectors and concerned about protecting our homes.

The second amendment is not about goose hunting, or any other kind of hunting. It's also not about the National Guard either.

Gun control has hurt us in every election since 2000. Bill Clinton himself said that gun control is what caused Gore to lose TN and AR.

But it seems like every election cycle we have someone stand up and, in the name of the party, declare that this gun or that gun is evil and causes crime and we have to pass more gun control legistaltion.

It just seems that every election we hand them a stick to beat us over the head with on this issue.

[Dogmudgeon]

22. You're right

But this issue isn't about preventing people from having firearms, it's about making sure firearms owners are responsible people. The position of the people I call the "Gunn Nutts" is that there should be no accountability whatsoever until a law has been broken -- and even then, that lawbreakers should get a "mulligan", especially in cases of domestic violence or civil battery.

Nearly no aspect of our lives has escaped accountability-mania. Why shouldn't gun owners be required to at least understand the law and the magnitude of their responsibilities? I know that most of them DO, but laws are usually written for the idiots and potential idiots. For instance, so many Americans have the idea that it's legal to shoot someone who's on their property for any reason that a few laws have actually been passed to formalize it.

My own position on "gun control" is simple: everybody with a gun should be required to know the basics of firearms law. I don't mean a thousand pages of the US Civil Code, I mean things like "if you shoot someone, you may be called before a judge to explain yourself, even if you are innocent" or "ownership of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is not covered under the Second Amendment". About as much as a driver's license involves.

This isn't a particularly radical position, but the NRA and most of the right-wing candidates would have you believe it was one step away from the Gulag. And I don't think that too many Democrats have much more restrictive ideas about gun control. But the stories that have gone around since the early 1950s have been anything but rational.

Sadly, yes, firearms law is a big loser for our side. The "Liberal Gun-Grabbers" story is a phony argument, though, just like the other rabble-rousing argument that nobody is allowed to so much as whisper the word "god" in a classroom (when the law only forbids organized, directed religious observations). There is really no way around irrational ideas except through education -- which may explain why so many hard-ass right wingers hate "perfessers" and education in general -- and those "academic liberals who hate America".

The firearms controvery is supported by similar bad arguments. Remove those arguments, and the so-called "pro" and "anti" sides become remarkably close.

--p!

[DonP]

27. OK, but where do we say enough?

"But this issue isn't about preventing people from having firearms"

To a lot of people it still is about not just more control but actual confiscation.

We're having this conversation less than a week after Democrat controlled and high profile San Francisco passing what everyone already says is an unconstitutional ban on all handguns in the city limits, with an involuntary confiscation component. "Turn them all in or we'll come and take them".

It makes it hard to tell gun owners we don't want confiscation or more gun control with examples like this in the headlines.

Today, any time I go to buy a gun or ammunition, at a store or a gun show, I have to show my state Firearm Owners ID card (Illinois). To buy any gun I have to undergo a National check (NICS) and wait 24 hours before picking up a long gun and 72 hours vbefore picking up a handgun.

The dealer I buy from is required to maintain copies of the form 4473 for an indefinite period of time.

If our goal is to neutralize this issue for future national elections somebody has to tell places like SFO to sit down and shut up.

[LostinVA]

54. He HUNTS, what the heck isn't there to believe?

[formernaderite]

34. Kerry looked like an idiot all decked out in new gear....

I gasped and wondered what the hell all those handlers actually did. It would have been better had he not done this little campagin stunt and simply talked about gun rights.

[losdiablosgato]

42. We laughed about that at "beer" camp hard

A moderate Dem with a pro middle class economic message will win. But he or she has to be believed. Kerry wasn't.

[tatertop]

4. We should make this a non-issue

[ret5hd]

5. Should I listen to you or the ones that say...

we have to lose the abortion issue? Or the ones that say we have to lose the affirmative-action issue? Or the ones that way we have to lose the union issue? Or the ones who say we have eto lose the class issue?

I'm so confused. Maybe if we just drop all issues, and just run our candidates based on penis or breast size...

[patcox2]

6. I think this issue is different from any of those.

Those are about freedom and equality.

This is the only issue espoused by democrats thats really completely unrelated to fundamental issues of freedom and equality.

This one is pure "guns are dangerous and the government should be allowed to ban anything dangerous." Thats not a core democratic issue. This is about the government restricting individual freedom under the rationale the government has to protect people from themselves. All the other issues are about keeping the government out of personal choices, and using the government to promote equality.

I see a huge distinction.

[PerpetualWinter]

19. Absolutely

The others are attempts to expand/protect our rights, the gun issue is an attempt to limit our rights. Its very difficult to take something away from someone who already has and uses it. Of course, I don't see guns being taken away or further restricted, just like I don't see Roe v Wade being overturned.

Of course, I'm a pro-gun Democrat so I'm definitely going to support any (intra-ideological) movement to stop the anti-gun left.

[Greyhound]

25. Good point. In addition, this issue doesn't enjoy the support of a clear

majority that the other issues do. :smoke:

[unpossibles]

7. my father in law is a single issue gun voter

and always votes to the right because of it. Unfortunately, the damage is already done and I think those like him will continue to ignore the left assuming they still "want to take his guns away".

Ironically, I know many leftist people who are not anti-gun at all, including myself. I am not pro-gun per se, in the sense that there are far more important issues in this day and age, but I do not think they should be banned either. Then again, I am anti prohibition for most things such as drugs, prostitution, etc. because we should have learned our lesson in the other prohibition, that criminalizing something doesn't make it go away, it makes criminals very rich and dangerous.

The other "amusing" thing about this issue - when the Bill of Rights was written, the technology of the government's guns was equal to the citizens' guns. While I do believe the citizenry should not rid itself of means of defense against the government, they have bigger guns than we do, not to mention high-tech surveillance and other goodies that are potentially more dangerous. They won't come and shoot us, they will send us off to a black site prison on trumped up charges from spying on us.

[formernaderite]

33. Unfortunately there are many of the gun grabbers right here on DU

weirdly they haven't invaded this thread. You know I am an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment, and understand that some people on the left are not. But I've never exhibited the degree of vitriol and frothing at the mouth that the gun grabbers exercise. They virtually go ballistic...ahem, and considering the amount of medication they're probably on, I somewhat understand their fear of having guns available to themselves.

[Paladin]

38. Well, Let's See, Now.....

...You're representing yourself as an ardent Second Amendment type; you're using the term "gun grabbers" and you're slandering such people as being hysterical drug users; and you've used this thread to trash John Kerry. Yeah, I think you're ready to join your fellow RKBA "Democrats" down in DU's Gun Dungeon. They'll give you a few lessons on vitriol and frothing at the mouth---not that you probably need much in the way of instruction.......

[HereSince1628]

8. Dean was all for dropping gun control from the dem agenda

Kerry tried to look sympathetic to gun ownership...

They fell from attacks on other issues.

My point is getting a candidate past the primary and then elected isn't going to hang on any single issue.

[billbuckhead]

13. Gun "rights" is code for racism and sexism

The gun "rights" issue is code for race.

Here's what NRA intellectual Charlton Heston has to say to support what I'm saying with a little capitalization for emphasis.
"Mainstream America is counting on you to DRAW YOUR SWORD AND FIGHT for them. These people have precious little time and resources to BATTLE MISGUIDED CINDERELLA attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, THE FEMINISTS who preach that it is a divine duty for WOMEN to hate men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek preference with the other …"

"I remember when European Jews feared to admit their faith. The Nazis forced them to wear yellow stars as identity badges. It worked. So what color star will they pin on gun owners chests? How will the self-styled elite tag us? There may not be a Gestapo officer on every street corner, but the influence on our culture is just as pervasive."

"On the other hand, I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton's cultural shock troops participate in gay-rights fundraisers but boycott gun-rights fundraisers and then claim it's time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served and more loved." --Speech to Free Congress Foundation."
<http://www.nraleaders.com/charlton-heston.html >

[HereSince1628]

16. Um, OK, but I don't think you meant to link that to my post.

To get the most effect you might want to hook it up where it logically follows

[Leilani]

30. Charlton Heston marched with Martin Luther King

when it wasn't a popular thing to do.

[DaveinMD]

35. Heston is an asshole

who basically wants to kill every union in the country. And I don't give a shit about gun control.

[LostinVA]

58. Well, he became a major RWer homophobe and anti-choicer

Which negates what he did with Dr. King.

The NRA isn't what it once was; it's now a bubbling cauldron of neoconism.

[AX10]

65. again, the NRA are a bunch of pigs.

Democrats can be pro-gun, but must never work with the NRA.

[losdiablosgato]

43. Yet San Fransico, one of the most liberal cities in the country bans guns

That will be trotted out next year by the right.

[OnionPatch]

10. Just have to say I agree

I am a rural Democrat and grew up in rural America and I personally know a ton of guys who have left the Democratic party because of this one, single issue.

I see it as a freedom issue, the same way I see many issues. Americans should have the freedom to own guns and we should not be punished because of those who misuse them. I feel the same way about drugs, etc.

And, no, I don't see it as a waffling or a desperate move to abandon our principles for votes. I've never been on the gun control bandwagon and I honestly don't think it's an issue for the majority of Dems, yet we keep getting screwed because of it.

[emdee]

14. For me, it's not the position that's wrong....

once again, it's the way Reps phrase the position. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone wants to keep assault weapons and cop-killer bullets legal. I've never seen the position from the left to do away with hunting weapons - but assault weapons? I think that if we could ever out-shout their lies about what the actual beliefs are, we'd come out on top.

I hear hunters all the time saying that they vote Rep because "Dems will take our guns away." But, no Dem wants to stop someone from rabbit hunting or deer hunting in season, do they? Or keep someone from having a handgun in their home for defensive purposes? I've never seen it. What I think we against -what I'm against- is the ak-47 being on the street (ak-47? is that the right terminology?) and cop-killer bullets have no place in the hands of anyone and should be outlawed.

emdee

[PerpetualWinter]

20. However...

You won't find an "AK-47" on the street. Maybe a replica, but automatic weapons are already banned. Also, the whole assault weapon ban really was a joke. Do you think that the guns were really that different? Hell, when it expired a sporting goods store owner I know was just jacked that he'd get to sell "cool looking guns to collectors" again. Its not like the guns he was selling during the ban were mechanically all that different, however aesthetically they were very different.

[Romulus]

49. quick comments

So-called "assault weapons" (including the civilian-legal AK-47 you refer to) don't do anything that non-defined-as "assault weapons" don't do: namely, fire semi-automatically (one shot per trigger press).

It's like banning "high performance Fast-And-The-Furious drag race cars" but still allowing Mercedes SLK Kompressor coupes, Camaros, and Sentra SER's to remain legal for sale.


"Cop killer bullets" is a term that really makes no sense. Is it referring to handgun ammo that can penetrate certain types of police body armor? If so, "regular" rifle ammo falls into that category because many types can be fired from handguns. Is it referring to any ammo that can penetrate the body armor? Well, then it's the same answer: 99% of "hunting" rifle ammo has enough power to penetrate soft body armor, and many types of "hard" armor, too.

ATF does have existing standards concerning handgun-exclusive ammo that addressed the armor-piercing concerns that many people have.

Hope this helps!

[Hollow Shells]

15. I agree

The gun issue is holding Libs back. Though it's true that the fruits of dropping this issue won't be realized for an election or two, we would prosper in the long run. Lets not fear individual liberty.

[nickshepDEM]

17. Agreed. Ive always been anti-gun control.

I take the Mark Warner position. Uphold the laws currently on the books. Avoid new anti-gun legislation.

[Romulus]

51. too bad for us MDers

I wish the MD Dems adopted Warner's approach. Several DO, but most don't (e.g., the entire Montgomery and PG delegations)

The RW uses MD as a prime example, along with CA/IL/NJ/NY(C), of the "Dems will ban your guns and make gunowners' lives a living hell" meme.

[whatever4]

18. ...more people in prison right now than any other nation on earth...

per capita

by total numbers

we have 1/20 of the total world population.

but we have the most prisoners by all measures

can anyone explain this rationally in a manner that doesn't indicate the US IS the number one police state? And they're just getting started, in case anyone failed to notice. Patriot act? Torture? Bird flu quarantines before it's even a human flu? HELLO is there anybody home???

But no, it's all about the bunnies and the venison. It's all about looking rational in the argument. *sigh* And where's my damned link to prove my half-baked idea anyway...

When it happens, if it happens, it will only happen if people let it happen. I remember seeing those Chinese farmers fighting off government-hired rifle-toting thugs paid to run them off their land with shovels and rakes, and I think can't help thinking anyone that believes our authorities need more and better forms of violent control, and to believe they need those things NOW in the United States when we had another case of suspected elections just last fucking week are fools and there just isn't a better word. Hell, it's not even an opinion original with me.

I'm sure no further participation is necessary. Or desired. Good night and good luck and I've got nothing more to say. Shovels and rakes. Good fucking luck. You don't like guns? It won't matter. They do.

[FormerDittoHead]

21. The Dem "war" against guns is as effective as war against drugs...

I agree with you here. What do I care how MANY / kinds of guns people can own as long as it's still against the law to USE them?

I understand the groups which control the Dem party in the abortion, welfare and education issues, but who is the "anti-gun" group and what do they have over the Democratic party?

I really haven't been convinced that strict gun laws has reduced inner city / gang related shootings which are the result of economics, not guns. My analogy with drugs is apt.

We're NEVER going to get rid of guns, not in our lifetimes, not in the lifetimes of our grandchildren.

I'd just like to see the Republicans try to counter our acceptance of guns by advocating legalizing sawed off shotguns, silencers and machine guns....

Take this issue off the table and you've got a nice block of voters who will stay at home or maybe even vote for us....

[Romulus]

48. short-barreled shotguns, suppressors and machine guns ARE legal

Under the 1934 National Firearms Act . . .

Anyone wanting to own one has to pay a special ATF registration tax, get their local or state police to sign off on the registration application, and go through a 3-to-6-month ATF background check (including fingerprints and photos).

Suppressors and "short barreled shotguns" can be purchased new, today, right now, as long as your state also allows them.

New machine guns have barred from the ATF registry since 1986, but you cans still own one that was made before then.

Hope this helps!

[LynneSin]

23. I don't think we need to lose it as much as just put in on the backburner

I think that guns laws should be on the local & state level NOT federal level. Gun laws that large cities want don't work with what is desired in the more rural parts of the country.

[MadHound]

24. The thing is that in poll after poll, survey after survey,

Reasonable gun control is always favored by the vast majority of Americans. The trouble is that the NRA works up their gun nut base by framing the debate as the freedom to own a gun vs gun grabbing nuts. This works their fanatics into a froth, and that quiet voice of reasonableness gets drowned out in the subsequent shouting match.

What needs to be done is to continue with gun control as an issue, but one that we frame in reasonableness and fair play. No, we're not out to grab guns, but we do think that they should be registered and that a person's background should be checked before they're allowed to buy one.

But instead, the NRA starts screaming and the Dems back down, and thus the gun industry gains a bit more ground. Sad, all the way around.

[Sparkly]

26. I disagree.

The majority favor gun control, which is why Chimpy moved to Kerry's position last year on the AWB, saying he would sign it.

Polls and other info:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=710
http://www.csgv.org/issues/elections/ontarget/ontarget25.cfm
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=471
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=204

[losdiablosgato]

61. So

I do not know if the majority want gun control. But I know the majority in many key states that vote do not want it. This is one of the reasons we lost the south and when we lose the south we lose the election.

[applegrove]

28. Gun control does not mean that people cannot have guns in their

homes or collect them. It means that groups and cities have a right to regulate against excessive gun violence and use those regulations to throw criminals in jail.

Toronto has had an outbreak of gun violence. Half the guns come from the USA. We have as many hunters and the like as the USA per capita. What separates us is regulations & culture.

Why would we want our inner city youth to live in fear? Why should our police live in fear? We don't have the problem so why would we let that happen. Why would San Francisco?

Called democracy.

[obreaslan]

29. This is very simple....

We can't logically take the position of "take away everyone's guns" because this violates the same personal privacy issues we defend in the constitution every day. We protect freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of the press (or what used to be the press, not this bastardization we have now), etc. Like it or not, freedom to bear arms is in there also.

That being said, there should be a very simple and easy to understand approach to gun control that does not put the fear into the gun owners in this country that "liberal" stormtroopers are going to come and kick down your door and take your guns away.

I propose that the same rules that apply to owning a vehicle apply to owning a gun. Take a page from the DMV, as much as i hate to say it.

*You must have a license to own a gun
*You must be 18 years old to have a shooting permit/21 for an owners permit.
*You must pass a shooting/safety test to get your license (written and shooting range)
*You must register your gun with the state. You must first have a license to register.
*You can't drive a race-car or a dragster on the street and you can't own an assault weapon or armor piercing bullets. Just like there are rules for the type of vehicle you can drive on the street, there are rules for the type of gun you own.

You can carbon copy the rules for driving and owning a car to the rules for owning a gun.

The Repukes have proved that people respond to bulleted points, so lets give it to them. We don't need to get long winded and technical. Concise and clear is how the message should be laid out.

[Romulus]

46. right idea- wrong descriptions, and devil in details

*You must have a license to own a gun
- license is valid in all states and cities while traveling, in all public locations accessible by the holder?? Can said license be legally withheld because the issuing authority "doesn't think you need it?"

*You must be 18 years old to have a shooting permit/21 for an owners permit.
- drafted at 18, can be a security guard at 18, but no personal firearms licenses until 21?

*You must pass a shooting/safety test to get your license (written and shooting range)
- what are the standards to be used? What the NRA basic safety class teaches, what private security guards must meet, or what the USMC special operations capable ("SOC") hostage rescue qualifications require ?

*You must register your gun with the state. You must first have a license to register.
- registration good while traveling throughout all 50 states and all cities?

*You can't drive a race-car or a dragster on the street and you can't own an assault weapon or armor piercing bullets. Just like there are rules for the type of vehicle you can drive on the street, there are rules for the type of gun you own.
- last time I checked, my neighbor's race car was still legal to have in his garage, along with its turbocharged engine. He can't drive it on a public street, but can tear up his 1/4 mile driveway all he wants, as well as the race track. Also, last time I checked, you could drive a Ferrari on public roads, a Ferrari that goes just as fast as this guy's stock car.

[Village Idiot]

60. Interesting.

Nearly all of these apply to us "gunn nutts" up here in Canada. While the National Gun Registry Program has been a major boondoggle, registration and education programs here have been successful.

And it doesn't stop people from owning guns (Canada actually has more guns, per capita, than the USA), it HOPEFULLY will be able to cut down on the numbers of gun-related deaths via gun stupidity...

[losdiablosgato]

62. Other countries have you sensible laws at one pint then confiscated later

England had those rule once then they came and took most of the guns. It now is almost impossible to get a bb gun there. You rules make sence to soem if that is as far as it goes, but when gun owner have given this in the past in other countries they lose their guns. Gun owners know this and will never go along with it.

[doc03]

32. Agree and lose the women's right to "Chose" as Dean said

and make it a privacy issue.

[leesa]

36. It's a false issue and you fell for it. The RW sells this issue as

Democrats wanting to take your guns away or wanting some all-consuming gun-control. It is BS just like all their other RW talking point BS.

Why do you indulge them?

Fascists are the ones that take away guns because they are the ones that must control a population. WHO are the fascists in this picture? Which party longs for order and control? Why does the NRA share its membership lists with law enforcement?

The NRA and the second amendment nonsense is all about making money selling arms. It's BIG business. Why don't we tell it like it is for a change.

[SONUVABUSH]

39. I agree

Any candidate for pres with a history of anti-gun votes has 2 strikes against him, (or her).

[montana500]

40. we lost the red states for two reasons:

gun control and right wing radio.

[jackbourassa]

44. I agree this is a losing issue

People who oppose gun control will vote for us anyway for other reasons. It doesn't win us any votes. Second, the people who truly care about this issue are those who are dead set against gun control.

Finally, gun control doesn't really work anyway.

So why support a policy that doesn't really work to get people to vote for you, who were going to vote for you anyway, and in the meantime piss off a bunch of people who might have voted for you.

Doesn't make much sense.

[Romulus]

50. reframe the debate

And I don't mean like the current "gun safety" approach (whereby "gun safety" means banning firearms ownership or severly restricting ownership like in DC)

More gun laws could actually do some good (depending on what they do). The number one safety law should address firearms theft from legal owners. This is where the bulk of crime guns come from. Advocate for "Safe storage" of unattended handguns or other firearms. NOT the DC "locked up at all times so as to preclude home defense" type of law, but one like Switzerland where they be securely stored when the owner is away.

Also, adopt the Swiss "paper trail" method. Like the US, Switzerland only required background checks to be done if a licensed dealer was selling the firearm. However, unlike the US, Swiss gun owners are required to keep a sales receipt/contract for 10 years after they sold their gun to someone else. In the US, in most places, there is no requirement to keep a record of a private sale. This "paper trail" requirement gets us away from the registration bogeyman, but ensures some sort of accountability by the owners who sell their firearms. Same for a law requiring all transfers to go through a dealer who keeps the paperwork in thier own files, and not a government database.

(Switzerland adopted a mutual security pact this year called the Schengen Accord that includes, among other things, allowing holders of "firearms passports" to transport their firearms among other European countries. Part of the passport process is a background check. This effectively ends the private sale loophole in Switzerland.)

These would be good ideas to push, instead of gun owner roundup lists (licensing and registration), outlawing self-defense use of firearms (like DC), and banning and confiscating firearms (NYC and "assault weapons," and now San Fran with their handgun ban).

[sadiesworld]

52. I tend to be favorable toward reasonable

gun control-like the majority of US citizens-but 2nd amendment single-issue voters are absolutely real (unlike the free traders who are tougher to find off-line than unicorns) and absolutely relentless.

My thought is the dems need to do a better job of showing exactly how close the parties are on this issue and the exact reasons for the distinctions. Take a page from the repug fearmongering book...terra, terra, terra.

Also, framing the gun issue in the context of environmentalism is starting to have a real impact with the hunting/fishing crowd in my state (KY).

Finally, I would like to find the idiot who proposed the SF gun ban initiative and personally slap him/her. I predict that we will hear about that particular piece of legislation ENDLESSLY in the lead up to '06. It's gonna get ugly, I fear.

[losdiablosgato]

63. Only about 30 to 35% of gun owners hunt

Enviromentalist approve I do not think will work.

[LostinVA]

55. So many things wrong in your statements

1.). & 2.) Many of those "rural" voters are also: sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-union, anti-religion if not Christianity. Hey! Let's forget those issues, too! These people will NEVER align themselves with Dems.

3.) Many of us care about guns. There si nothing wrong with background checks and waiting periods, and restrictions on certain types of weapons. I could care less about hunting arms, but not specific handguns and automatic weapons.

4.) The majority of the "anti-gun" constituency isn't anti-gun. It's pro-control. Nothing wrong with that. And, there are more than 12. My Dad was an avid hunter and target shooter when he was able to physically do that stuff, but he has always ben pro-control.

5.) Gun control is NOT "Mommy State." No more than ANY other public safety measure.

[Bridget Burke]

59. No, not many people "live for gun control"

But far too many live in fear that the Democrats are going to come & take away all their guns. Can there really be "tens of millions" of credulous fools who think this phantom threat is the only important political issue?

Where's the list of powerful Democrats who've pushed through anti-gun legislation? Where's the link to their anti-gun pronouncements?

What are the other "issues that are destroying us"?

[Kolesar]

64. Four posts in fourteen minutes, and then you run away

Thanks, Patcox2