Is gun control a basic tenet of Democratic ideals?

I have always considered myself socially liberal, but I have changed my opinion on guns over time. I have lately (past few years) come around to the idea that guns need to be restricted far more than they are currently.

When I was a gun-rights supporter, I never considered myself a conservative or a Republican. The rest of my views definitely fit more into the Democratic party tent.

gun-fanciers are white wing racists, even if there are a few Democrats who need guns and feel that their gun obsession is more important than lives, armed intimidation, spousal abuse with firearms, etc.

You'd think Democrats would not want to be associated with gunners like this, but . . . . . .

target shooting is the equivalent of the right wing thugs in your picture. I also challenge your contention that the vast majority of gun-fanciers are white wing racists, although I guess it depends on your definition of a "gun fancier." So, I'll bite, what is your definition of a "gun fancier?" And where did you get reliable evidence that the vast majority of gun-fanciers are white wing racists? I am a member of a local shooting range with over a thousand members, and while I don't doubt some members are racists, the vast majority are most definitely not. There are probably right wing racists who are members of the local garden club, too.

of GOPers are white wing racists.

Go to any gun store, gun show, gun website, firing range -- tell me what you see.

Look at the NRA, the largest gun organization. Ollie North was just elected Prez by the membership, who also elected this Board Member --




We are not talking about hunters. Besides, studies also show that only 6% of the population hunted in the past 12 months. Throw out the white wingers who go once a year or so to drink, play with their guns, mess around on their spouse, talk chit, etc., and you have about 3% who are hunting for food, if that.

Besides, I don't care if someone has a gun or two AT HOME for hunting and the unlikely event they need it for self-defense. I do care when they stockpile guns, tote on public streets, march with their guns, help defeat good Democrats, etc.

But you go on believing that the vast majority of gun-fanciers -- those who have a bunch of guns, would hide their AR15s if banned, gun toters, supporters of NRA and even more racist gun organizations, vote only for candidates that support more guns everywhere, etc. -- are just harmless hunters. I don't think so. Sorry.

Many gun owners have a significant amount of money invested in their hobby. That alone explains why many gun owners vote for Republicans.

Some Democrats favor an incremental approach to imposing gun legislation as exists in the UK on the citizens of this nation. First ban evil looking semiautomatic rifles that resemble the weapons used by the militaries of the world. Then ban all semiautomatic rifles. Follow that by banning all semiautomatic pistols which are basically the most used firearms by the criminal element. Gun owners compare this approach to a camel’s nose under the tent. They believe that in the end an honest and responsible person would be able to own at the most one bolt action single shot rifle and one shotgun. Handguns would be totally illegal. Of course any citizen who owned these firearms would have to have an expensive license that would have to be renewed every year and also have to carry an expensive insurance policy covering accidents and misuse of his firearms.



Another factor is that Americans have a history of distrusting government. They feel that eventually a dictator will take over our nation and want some ability to resist a tyrannical government. Considering the number of firearms in our nation and the fact that many gun owners have received military training and actual combat experience courtesy of our nation they might be able to mount a significant level of resistance. It might not be successful in the end but civilian led uprisings all over the world have often overthrown oppressive governments.

Of course most people who wish to see gun bans and even confiscations occur view firearms as totally evil. The reality is that firearms are frequently used for legitimate self defense and save lives.

Democrats would attract more gun owner votes if they simply banned the use of the word “ban.” Our gun laws can be improved in many ways to help insure that criminals and people with serious mental issues that endanger others find it far more difficult to obtain a firearm. Of course this would not happen overnight.

In many close elections gun owners make the difference. I honestly feel Hillary would be president today had she not mentioned that an Australian style gun buyback program was worth considering.

I'm also not a fan of people who stockpile lethal weapons, train to kill people, and worse.

you might consider to be a “stockpile.” Most of my collection of firearms are revolvers. Other shooters often consider me to be a dinosaur.

Since I do use both bullseye and silhouette targets you would probably accuse me of training to kill. Of course you are insinuating that I am actually training to murder.

The reality is that the last thing I ever hope to do is shoot another person. However if I am attacked by someone who intends to put me in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under and has the ability to do so, I want to have the ability to stop his attack. If I use a firearm for legitimate self defense I need to practice with it to gain the necessary proficiency.

target shooting or competition.

revolver.

It’s a habit I picked up when I lived in a bad neighborhood in the Tampa Bay Area.

are planning to shoot at a lot of folks or need the extra "compensation."

I wonder, how do you feel about semi-auto rifles with more than say a 5 or 6 shot magazine? I suppose semi-auto pistols ought to figure in too.

Personally, if gunners were content with revolvers, we wouldn't have much of a gun problem. I suppose one could perpetrate a mass shooting with one, but not very likely. Plus, most folks aren't going to stockpile a ton of small revolvers or parade around with them like the fools above. They are adequate for the still unlikely self-defense needs, but not going to embolden people to blast away like in they were in a war zone.

Was a .38 revolver and a hunting shotgun, right?

Glad to know days when I carry my .38 I’m carrying something that meets your stamp of approval.

As to guns used, I doubt he shot many with the .38. I'm betting the pump action shot gun. Further, these shooting -- whether movie theaters, schools, concerts, churches, etc. -- have largely been the result of the availability of semi-auto "assault" style weapons. Cut those out, and you pretty much neuter the gun industry and all the crud that goes with it.

School shootings are normally close range events. Fortunately few school shooters have realized this in the past. Let’s hope shotguns do not become the next fad for mass murder.

other shooters feel is appropriate in a legitimate case of self defense. Of course as I have stated I am somewhat of a dinosaur. I believe in making every shot count and being damn careful where every round goes. I fear if I had a pistol with 15 or 17 rounds I might just start blazing away.

Feral hogs are considered as pests in Florida where I live as they are not native and do considerable damage to the environment. They tend to congregate in herds and can run very quick when a hunter attempts to exterminate them. An AR-15 with a 20 or 30 round magazine can prove useful in this situation. If I move to a more rural area and find hogs are tearing up my property I might consider buying an AR-15. However since I am a dinosaur I would probably use a lever action rifle to cull the herd. Of course I would be extremely careful to not endanger other residents living near my property.

The rules are different if you are hunting feral hog in a Wildlife Management Area. As with other game a semiautomatic rifle is limited to 5 round magazines.

I doubt if we will see much headway being made anytime soon.

I personally prefer concealed carry.

Of course I have no interest in intimidating or scaring others.

people like that, even the Republican gun owners I know have no association with people like that.

Does the left think essentially unlimited access to guns is right.

Because it's not right and does nothing but result in thousands of dead civilians.

responsible and safe hunting and target shooting?" Refusing to contemplate a valid middle ground is not an honest approach to the issue. I thought it was right wingers who saw everything in black and white with no room for nuance and shades of gray.

...but it's 99% closer to no guns than what the US has...

think of it like drugs... America is a full blown heroin addict, hurting everyone it runs into to feed it's appetite... Europe is on it's second cup of coffee and wondering if maybe it should switch to decaf on the weekends...

the US is utterly obsessed with guns, has 300M and loses as many people to guns as it did on 9/11... every 5 weeks... worrying about access to guns in that context is pretty laughable.

What exactly do you mean? SOME on "The Left" think that?

Even DU's hard-core RKBA posters think that right can and should be limited. Fully automatic weapons have been effectively banned since the 1930s and they don't rail against it that I've seen.

It does say in the Constitution that it's a right. I don't like it, but it does say that.

It says other things that get ignored. The Unorganized Militia is poorly regulated. "Bearing" Arms doesn't mean walking around strapped all the time.

There's NOWHERE in the world except America where handguns are considered something that most people should EVER have access too.

And no wonder, they're the main source of gun death in America, by a long shot.

Now go find someone mainstream on the left in America that wants to ban them and confiscate them.

Because that's what the left in the rest of the world thinks.

In this respect the left in America is absolutely out of step with the entire rest of the world.

And, it doesn't REALLY say that in the constitution. For years courts ruled that the individual right to bear arms or own guns was NOT protected. It was only after decades of far right propaganda and partisan judgements that that changed.

It's the interpretation that has changed, and the hysteria that's been whipped up to foster weapon sales.

It took 40 years to get to this predicament. It will take 40 years to get back to where we were (which wasn't a particularly good place).

"It's waaaay too late for Gun Control in America" - Steve Earle

America has for MUCH LONGER than 40 years had epidemic levels of gun violence. Sure in 69 LBJ tried to reverse the gun violence trend... and failed...

That's 50 years ago.

And that was after decades of gun violence.

the worst school massacre was almost 100 years ago as well...

This is a multi-generational and unstoppable, because Americans won't do what it takes to stop it.

Here's multiple examples from the 40s as well - that's almost 80 years ago:

https://www.thenation.com/article/gun-violence-american-schools-nothing-new/

BTW: changing the interpretation of the constitution wasn't accidental, but was foisted on Americans by crooked politicians.

at the "Cincinnati Revolt" in '77.

Here is the section from the current party platform.

Preventing Gun Violence
With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.

Our ranks are expanding in this area and grassroots efforts are working. Gun humping merchants of death days are numbered. Ok, maybe years and years instead of days.

Yes, there are too many who come here posing as Democrats but all they ever post is pro-guns and I doubt they are progressives in any sense of the word. Most here want this madness to end and our guns to be regulated, studied and reported on. I would not vote for a Dem or anyone who is fine with gun laws as they are or who uses the lying words - good guy with a gun as the answer to the killings. If people in TX are so stupid they want their kids to continue to be murdered, that's really sad and frightening =- but in no way should we let this stop us for one second.

#ENOUGH #NEVERAGAIN

I got a pro-gun reply from someone who has only 191 Posts in seven years and 5 in the last 90 days. Four of those posts are on this thread. I asked if he posted on other topics, and he said "yes, lots." Would it be out of school to ask him to prove he posts on other topics by linking one?

I really do think this site is monitored by NRA lackeys who pose as Democrats to try and buffer gun control discussions.

Most of them pose as ex-service men, ex police or some other job where they carry guns, don't know if that's real or just a ploy. They also go into great detail gunsplaining, especially to women and tell us we can't have an opinion because we don't know the proper terminologies. BS!

while I support that as a start, it's hardly going to lower gun deaths by even 15%.... I appreciate the political calculus, but as far as gun control goes it's... pretty weak compared to every other "left" party in literally the entire world...

"it's hardly going to lower gun deaths by even 15%."

That's huge and an amazing start.

Because I'd say a lot of folks would look at policies that result in... 28,000 deaths as not that amazing... even as a start... And frankly, I'm being extremely generous when I say 15%. I'd HONESTLY suggest that if you look at the gun deaths under Obama... well.. let's just say that they didn't fall anything close to 15%.

I LOVE Obama, and as an expat it takes a lot more dedication to vote and be active than most people expend, but I also am realistic about America and it's love for guns. No party can run on policies that would lower gun deaths by 50%... it's just not possible... no need for me to be disingenuous and claim otherwise.

Oh and you don't understand comparing the US to places that have solved this problem? Weird. I don't understand NOT doing that.

While most of us do favor increased restrictions on guns, we are greatly divided as to just how far those restrictions should go.

Background checks.

Assault weapon ban.

Limiting clip size.

There are a number of ideas that are very popular among our side.

Please note, I will not address the jackass who tries to muddy the water with respect to the assault weapon ban. Your days are numbered gun humper.

Myself included.
Yet I vote every time for the things the Party supports and fights for outside of that.

You live in the DU bubble if you really believe everything listed is favored by every Democratic Party member.

Much more would be needed for a gun control based approach to stoppping violence and mass shootings.

What I’m sick and tired of are politicians passing halfassed watered down measures like bump stock bans or clip limits then congratulating themselves and moving on.... until next time.

How about full criminal liability for straw purchasing or when junior “borrows” dads gun for a rampage?

because it runs the gamut from maintaining the status quo to banning all guns. Most gun owners support some gun control measures - for example I support most regulations with only two firm exceptions (AWBs and registration.).

As for your comment regarding the 2A, the Democratic party platform holds that it protects an individual right to bear arms. President Obama, Bernie and Hillary said the same thing. So as a Democrat, believing that you have right to own guns independent of the militia puts you right in the mainstream.

I'm ex-military, and my opinion is: if you want to fire military weaponry, join the service or STFU.

Having said that, there are a lot of liberals who, seeing the right-wingers slavering and agitating for a 'race war', or to 'keel all th'libruhls!', decide to be just as well armed as the Deliverance crowd. I understand that motivation.

Preventing Gun Violence

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence

is needed by a few..and laws can be written to accommodate
them. Suthn gun love is a conditioned, boyhood thing in my
honest opinion..guys do grow out of it.

I support and demand rights and liberties for individuals when those rights do not negatively affect others.
Those rights include the ability to own guns and use and possess them responsibly without hurting others.
I don't have to explain to anybody why I choose to exercise that or any other rights.
If I have to get someone's permission to exercise my right then I don't really have that right.

If anybody is not a "real liberal" it's those who are eager to infringe on individual liberties of others.

So sick of this right-wing line...the Constitution does not start with "I, the person"!!!

Individual rights is the mantra of the white nationalist...

Enjoy your visit.

WTF?

Really... That's the statement you want to go with?

....he killed 20 million Chinese.
I bet Pol Pot said the same thing.

Do you think the keeping and bearing of Arms is predicated on participation in a well-regulated militia? Or does the preamble not condition the remainder of the Amendment?

I think this is the essential quandary of the 2nd.

From where I stand, our (Unorganized) Militia is anything but well-regulated. There are basically zero duties or responsibilities. Any Yahoo can keep and bear arms, anywhere, at any time, and the negligence that goes along with that surrounds us every day to the tune of 30K firearm deaths per year. Santa Fe HS being the most recent illustration of Militia negligence.

I'd really like to hear your response.

1. Me being Liberal is not predicated on the 2A or any other part of the Constitution. By way of analogy, when we talk about legalizing drugs, we don't refer to the Constitution. We do it because we support liberties. Same with guns - I support our rights irrespective of the 2A or its interpretations.

2. Interpreting the 2A. My understanding is as follows:
2a. The 1st half of the Amendment is preamble. As such, it explains the reason for the explicit protection of the RKBA without limiting or modifying the protection.
2b. The word "Militia" means "police" or "national guard" today. Way back when the BoR was drafted, the meaning was different. It meant "population" or "Able-bodied men". So the membership in the "militia" is not required as it is redundant. You cannot NOT be a member of the population.
2c. The word "regulated" means "restricted" or "limited" today. Again, back in the 18 century it means something else in this context. From what I read, it meant "supplied" or "provided-for".

So again, as a Liberal I support our rights notwithstanding TPTB.
2A guarantees a specific right to us.

You're in the Unorganized Militia, unless you're over 45. Or a lady.

Most of your response is what I've read from other RKBA posters on DU. Basically, you don't believe any responsibilities come with firearm ownership. The right is independent of the preamble. The right is independent of the Amendment.

Do you take it to the next level? Do you accept that access to full-automatic weapons can be restricted? It is. How can that restriction be acceptable to gun owners?

I have heard that "well-regulated" meant "functioning properly" in it's original context.

I don't own any firearms. Yet I support others' right to own them if they so choose.
I don't consume drugs stronger then coffee. Yet I don't want to tell others what not to put in their bodies.

People are responsible to not infringe the rights or others. Not with guns, not with words, not with anything else.

None of the rights are absolute.
1A does not protect your right to incite violence or commit treason
2A does not protect your right to own ICBMs (to use extreme example)

and so forth.

No ICBMs is an Infringement. No Full-Autos is an Infringement.

Sounds like you think that the Right can be infringed. Just like me!

Just curious.

the idea that the 2A protects an individual right is a mainstream, bi-partisan position. It has been part of the Democratic Party platform for quit a while. President Obama, Bernie and Hillary all have publicly supported that view of the 2A.

Some thing to consider: when in American history has private gun ownership separate from militia service not been the norm? Can you show a single city, state or federal law that explicitly linked gun ownership to militia service? Where are the examples of people being disarmed because they were not part of a militia? Is your argument that the founding fathers wrote the 2A to explicity forbid private owernship of guns and then promptly forgot about the issue?

If you are in NYC or LA and live in a place where few law abiding people own guns, then it’s more of a core issue for you.

If you live in more rural areas, then for many Democrats gun control is more of something you hold your nose about with the party and vote for it because so much stuff overrides that. Same goes for a lot of your unionized trades workers and factory workers- they are much less pro gun control or even against many things and the party has to have more to offer that overrides that negative in their Wes.

Because for those people in those areas guns are not the abstract thing that only some people have or only bad people have, they have them too and most people they know do.

Same goes for a lot of the things people say have “broad support”. You can throw an abstract concept out like “universal background checks” without details and most people will say they are for it. But when you start throwing details out like making it illegal to loan a hunting shotgun to a friend for a few days, or making it illegal to even let a friend hold your new hunting rifle to look at it, suddenly those vague concepts lose a whole lot of support from those who would otherwise support it.

So keep in mind what plays well in NY may cost you Iowa or PA or NC when determining what strategy should be.

On any other issue, where it appears that an individual right may be protected by the Constitution, precedent, or tradition, a more broad interpretation of that right in favor of the individual and against the interests of the state is the liberal position. So I would argue that on the question "shall private possession of firearms be permitted?", the pro-RKBA folks you mention take the more liberal position than yourself.

To answer another point, I support RKBA, but most of my posts are on other topics.

That usually translates into individual freedoms over and above state interests, but...

What about murder?

Shall we be REAL liberals and support each person's right to kill whomever they want?

Following the logic you've outlined, I'd say yes, murder should be permitted.

But it shouldn't.

Now, somewhere between actual murder and the mere potential for it created by everyone having guns, there must be a line.

Short version: the logic you're using is too simplistic to cover all the cases.

Is there a right to commit murder that is protected by the Constitution, tradition, or precedent? Of course not.

I think there's a pretty firm demarcation between supporting individual rights, and anarchy.

but the question is about what 'liberals' are in favor of.

Example: Many liberals think that guns should be restricted regardless of what rights the 2nd amendment (allegedly) gives people.

There is no "allegedly" about it, it means what ever the Supreme Court rules it means.
And they have ruled it is a individual right not requiring membership in a militia. (which is why it is in the "Bill Of Rights" of course)

Typically they are either libertarians or single-issue pro-gun posters.

Gun control is called for in the Democratic Party platform. And I along with a huge majority of DU members agree.

But it also affirms that the 2nd Amendment supports individual gun ownership. I and a good many other members here agree. But perhaps not a majority. It is an area where I believe DU members and Democrats in general disagree.