Its time for Democrats to drop the gun control platform

[Dwayne Hicks]

Let us face the truth, the control platform is a losing platform. The more you talk about it the more people vote against you. There is nothing wrong with expanded background checks, and expanded mental health checks but this has all been tarnished by the gun ban crowd. The reason why we cannot have a rational discussion is also at the fault of the Democrats, with certain members still clinging to assault weapon bans, heavy restrictions on handguns (which are defacto bans). This is the one area where we as a party do not recognize reality. And the reality is a large majority do not want "assault weapons" banned including myself. It will do nothing to curb the violence we see it didn't back then (when the ban was in effect) and it certainly will not now. The objective should be to close the loopholes in the southern states (where most of the illegal firearms come from) but tightening background checks and oversight at gun shows and private sales. But none of that will happen as long as Democrats (even if its a minority of them) keep discussing banning certain guns based on appearance and fear factor. Gun control is a losing platform every time and only costs votes which drives the Democrats further away from being able to achieve any sort of gun control sanity. Drop gun control.

[Rex]

1. .

[GGJohn]

6. I agree Rex.

Here, I'll share a beer with you while we watch this train wreck.

[Rex]

8. Sounds good!

Here, just popped some popcorn. Let's settle in and watch the show.

[GGJohn]

9. Extra butter? eom.

[Rex]

13. Movie theater butter!

[GGJohn]

15. Outstanding!!! eom.

[oneshooter]

111. Damn disapointing....................

Don't drink and can not eat popcorn.

[Quackers]

104. Popped some popcorn?

Hell, I thought that was gun fire.

[Rex]

105. Strangely enough...I also had some bubble wrap laying around.

Couldn't help myself, so it might have been both popcorn and bubble wrap you heard.

[Kang Colby]

14. Hey guys...

Save one for me.

[Rex]

17. Got an entire case in the fridge. Here crack open a cold one!

Just in 'case' this one turns epic.

[Kang Colby]

39. I'm on it.

Hope you are doing well, Rex.

[GGJohn]

18. No problem,

if we get low, I'll run down to the nearest DU store and get us some more.

[Eleanors38]

23. My pad batts are running out, guess I'll miss the woowoo talk!

[Kang Colby]

34. Drop in the charger.

Yes indeed. I'm off for the weekend, gonna literally crack open a cold one and enjoy this one.

[Initech]

98. Think I am going to need something a lot stronger!

[Initech]

97. Pass the butter please!

[Rex]

106. I think my expression in this thread is more like Jons.

Hehehe well played!

[Fred Sanders]

2. NRA and gun lovers are really feeling the pressure, is what this OP tells me...first Bengazhi falls,

next up is the myths created by the NRA.

This well known "concern" of Democrats is a well worn playing card that should not be turned over at DU.

[workinclasszero]

127. Exactly right! The terrorist enabler gun lobby group NRA

Is really feeling the heat after 2, count em 2 gun massacres in a week or so!

And armed concealed carry vigilantes shooting up parking lots to kill alleged shoplifters!

[stone space]

3. Your concern is noted.

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. No.

[villager]

5. Except there were fewer mass shootings when the ban was in effect

So you can stick your "concern trolling" somewhere else -- other than this message board

[Dwayne Hicks]

7. What trolling?

And please cite the stats.

[villager]

11. Your concern trolling, obviously

n/t

[Eleanors38]

24. Villager is in charge of things 'round here.

[kcr]

52. But everyone knows who really runs things

The gun crowd

[Duckhunter935]

37. what stats, we don't need any stinking stats!

[saturnsring]

10. they may have to chose btwn guns and s.s.,medicare,the environment,war,poverty,no education

a ruling class ( that will take their guns anyway)the left may want to limit guns but the right will take away everything else.

trolly mctrollerson is very concerned

[greatauntoftriplets]

12. Oy.

[NightWatcher]

16. Run on other issues, then once they have a majority, boom, pass some meaningful reform

But yes, talking about it mobilizes opposition voters and causes rednecks to flock to gun stores to stock up as they fear their toys are being taken away.

[Straw Man]

63. Yeah ...

Run on other issues, then once they have a majority, boom, pass some meaningful reform

But yes, talking about it mobilizes opposition voters and causes rednecks to flock to gun stores to stock up as they fear their toys are being taken away.

... deceiving the electorate is the way to go. Freakin' peasants don't know what's good for 'em anyway, right?

[demwing]

77. " Freakin' peasants don't know what's good for 'em anyway, right?"

Every time we ask ourselves "Why do people vote against their own interests" we are, in essence, saying that the freakin' peasants don't know what's good for 'em anyway.

Are we wrong then, or now?

[Straw Man]

112. Then and now.

Every time we ask ourselves "Why do people vote against their own interests" we are, in essence, saying that the freakin' peasants don't know what's good for 'em anyway.

Are we wrong then, or now?

We're wrong all the time if we can't figure what part of what we're offering is so repugnant that people will reject the message even at the cost of their own economic well-being.

IMO, it's the smug elitism that pervades the message that is to blame. You can't expect people to vote your way after you've publicly proclaimed their stupidity.

[JackRiddler]

167. Many of the freakin' peasants don't know what's good, period.

A third or more of the US population seems to want to take away the rights of women, minorities and workers. They'd like to bring back the stockade, and nuke some country in the Middle East (they're not sure which, so why not all of them)? They think winter means climate change isn't happening. They're against a lot more than their own economic interests. So? Should we pander to this? Should we not point it out?

[zappaman]

19. No.

[trumad]

20. The art of the paragraph.

[enough]

38. (!) (nt)

[cpwm17]

139. I learned about the paragraph in elementary school.

Do they teach that stuff anymore?

[Eleanors38]

21. I think this is better than trotting out the same ban rhetoric...

If someone wants to propose laws at a local or state level, have at it. But at the national level, gun control has become a scarlet letter affixed to the Party.

[rockfordfile]

22. Must be a republican troll

[TeddyR]

26. Ok

What do you propose the party should do on this issue (keeping in mind the official platform recognizes a 2d Amendment right to keep and bear arms)?

[Dwayne Hicks]

25. Ok then

Keep supporting candidates who advocate outright bans and eventual confiscation. Since its been such a winning issue for Democrats. You can have common sense gun control without the ban rhetoric.

[Nevernose]

43. Which candidates would those be?

I sure can't think of very many.

[pablo_marmol]

68. Can you say "assault weapon" ban?

Sure......I knew you could!

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

And of course brazenly lying for over two decades about the nation's most popular rifle comes at NO political price.

[sadoldgirl]

27. If the dems want to win in

purple states, they better don't tackle federal
bans on guns during the election cycle. It is
such a divisive issue, and one that makes many
people into one issue voters, that the party
better cool down with its anti-gun rhetoric.

Btw: I hate guns!

[Bettie]

28. No doubt

we should just say "Meh! Who cares if little kids are gunned down at school".

We should say, so people die, big deal. Guns are so much more important than human lives.

Yeah, I see where you're going with this, just admit that no one gives a crap about the death toll.

Well, some of us do, but we're supposed to shut up because we've not realized that no lives matter, only guns matter.

[TeddyR]

29. Everynone here wants to cut down on the mass shootings

What is your proposal for doing so?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. I'd rather cut down on solo shootings.

Because there are a hell of a lot more people dying each year in ones or twos than there are in tens and twenties. Mass shootings are flashy and draw a lot of media attention, but it's people just using handguns to shoot their spouses or people they've gotten into arguments with who kill far more.

[GGJohn]

41. ^^^This^^^!!!

For the win.

[Logical]

80. LOL, you love that idea, so what is your solution......

Cant wait for your great suggestion!

[GGJohn]

86. Gee, did I ever say I had a solution?

One suggestion would be to end the WOD and shift the funds to better mental health services and more funding for education, also funds for the rebuilding the nations infrastructure and provide thousands upon thousands of new jobs.

What's your suggestions?

[Bettie]

45. Either way, the gun people

just think we should turn a blind eye to it and just let anyone who wants a bunch of guns have 'em.

I'm tired of people demanding that no one ever say that there should be registration, background checks, or anything that might keep them from having all the guns they want.

I'm tired of people dying because someone had a gun in their hand and it made it easy to kill someone.

I'm tired of reading a story nearly every day about some little kid who got hold of a gun and killed another little kid or him/herself.

And what I'm really tired of is hearing the people who love their guns more than anything else in the world demanding that people stop caring about the death toll because....guns are awesome!

[pablo_marmol]

69. You're tired, huh?

But not "tired" enough to listen to what highly credentialed liberal criminologists have to say on the subject of gun violence. Criminologists who began their careers assuming a connection between the raw number of guns and gun violence.......only to change their position as their own research proved that belief lacking in evidence.

Not that tired.

[Bettie]

79. Fine...

guns are awesome. Everyone should just stop suggesting that they can be used for killing.

Any deaths that happen are 100% the fault of the victims for being in a place where someone is shooting. We should all stay home and hope that someone doesn't happen to be shooting people in our homes.

Happy now, Ben Carson?

[pablo_marmol]

116. "Happy now, Ben Carson?"

Typical and predictable slur from someone who's got no honest response.

So I guess I should now ask......are you proud of yourself now?

Everyone should just stop suggesting that they can be used for killing.

But of course you are aware that's NOT what you Controllers are always suggesting. You keep yammering about weapons that can ONLY be used for killing. Big difference.

[maxsolomon]

99. Kleck? Hemenway?

who are you specifically referring to?

[pablo_marmol]

117. David Bordua, James Wright, Peter Rossi [RIP] and Gary Kleck to name four.

Hemenway is an agenda-driven shill who's body of "research" has demonstrated clear bias by virtue of the fact that his blunders in methodology always favor the "gun control" position.

Kleck takes him and his equally dishonorable cohorts such as Philip Cook, Arthur Kellerman, Garen Wintemute and Jens Ludwig (to name a few) completely apart in the revised edition of his award-winning book Point Blank. (Revised for the benefit of the lay reader - Targeting Guns)

[maxsolomon]

144. Oh, I'm sure he "takes them apart".

Kleck is responsible for the ludicrous "2.5 million DGUs/year" estimate that Gunners trot out ceaselessly to justify their intransigence.

"Award-winning"

Regardless, thanks for the names.

[pablo_marmol]

145. There's that cheap, unstudied dismissal that you Controllers love to trot out.

1) Kleck's survey was taken at the very peak of U.S. gun violence, and could well have been on the high end of the actual DGU number. Scholars who conduct surveys expect readers of their research to know that there's considerable possible variation in their findings. (Gun violence is currently around half of what is was in 1993, though most Controllers aren't aware of that fact)

2) Kleck's chief critic - Philip Cook - came up with a figure of 1.5 million defensive gun uses with his survey instrument.....the NSPOF. That's within the margin of error of the Kleck finding. (You do know how survey figures are arrived at, yes?)

3) There are something in the order of 16 surveys by now that support Kleck's finding of high numbers of DGUs

4) Guess you haven't heard the latest bad news from your beloved CDC, who also admitted that defensive gun uses have been radically underestimated.

5) "Award-winning" ---- Yes. Kleck won the Michael Hindelang award - the highest bestowed by the American Society of Criminology for his book Point Blank which outlined the methodology for his DGU survey. The dean of American criminology - Marvin Wolfgang (RIP) - lauded Dr. Kleck for this methodology and the care he took in it's construction. And yes -- he really does eviscerate the minions of the felony-dishonest medical "scholars". You can see for yourself in his book Targeting Guns, a revised version of Point Blank rewritten with the lay reader in mind. Oh wait -- never mind. Reading a book in it's entirety that challenges your biases wouldn't be something we could realistically expect of you.

6) Jimmy Carter commissioned James Wright and Peter Rossi to study the effects of "gun control". Jimmy got bad news. The honest liberal criminologists reported back that there was no evidence that any "gun control" measure to that date had any measurable effect on gun violence. Go to Amazon and search under James Wright + Peter Rossi + Under the Gun and read the reviews. You'll find the story there, if you dare to look -- the chances of which I'm guessing are slim to none.

The horrible news for The Controllers is that the internet has allowed folks to learn that it's been LIBERAL scholars that have done the most damage to their bogus "cause". Not that you'd read anything they have to say......and not that it matters. You're doing a good job of losing ground keeping the hysteria going.

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. Exactly.

Mass shootings make great "hysteria fodder," but many, many times more people are killed in solo shootings. Moreover, the circumstances behind them tend to be very different from those behind mass shootings (and thus would this require different solutions, for the most part).

[OneGrassRoot]

84. And kids accidentally killing one another. n/t

[stone space]

87. Can we walk and chew gum at the same time?

I'd rather cut down on solo shootings.

This is not exactly an either/or proposition.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

88. I'm not sure we can walk or chew gum.

Much less at the same time.

[Bettie]

47. Well

We can't do background checks, because the NRA doesn't want them.

Can't keep violent people from having guns, because the NRA doesn't like that.

Can't really regulate anything...because the NRA and the gun lovers believe that guns are more important than lives.

I guess the only thing anyone who doesn't like it can do is suck it up and accept that we're always going to be waiting for the next report of a senseless death.

Ever been to the funeral of a kid who died from a gunshot to the head? I have. But, that doesn't matter because guns are more important than lives.

Human lives don't matter to gun lovers, only their sacred right to have as many guns as they want matters.

This OP demanded that all debate about guns be stopped. So, in the end, only gun lovers matter, not anyone else. Certainly not the dead.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. No thanks.

Look, if you want to simply vote for 'whatever wins seats', go for it. We've got plenty of people on site who think that way. I'd rather vote for people who I think will do the right thing, because I think that actually having principles and sticking to them wins voters over, while spinning in the wind turns people off from voting.

[Skittles]

31. LOL

see, everyone? We just have to ACCEPT that the increasing gun massacres are a way of American life - gun humping paranoid cowards have won! NOW MOVE ON!!!

[upaloopa]

33. No nt

[countingbluecars]

35. So would you agree that the plan

the Democrats put out today is a good one?

http://time.com/4066111/senate-democrats-gun-control/

[Dwayne Hicks]

57. I agree

Its common sense and does not ban anything.

[mwrguy]

36. No fucking way

It's time for a full court press on gun control.

Take the gloves off.

[City Lights]

40. Pass.

I miss unrec.

[ellie]

166. Me too

[Kang Colby]

42. K&R...telling it like it is.

[madinmaryland]

44. You might as well just become a republican by your logic. BTW, you might feel more at home at...

www.freerepublic.com

"And the reality is a large majority do not want "assault weapons" banned including myself."

Are you serious???

[restorefreedom]

110. jury results

On Fri Oct 9, 2015, 04:59 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You might as well just become a republican by your logic. BTW, you might feel more at home at...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7245584

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Completely unnecessary comment, since when are we like republicans who demand strict adherence to ideology?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Oct 9, 2015, 05:17 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope, not gonna hidee, makes sense.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No. Just no.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't agree with the OP, but I don't see anything over the top. Refute the argument.


Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Agnosticsherbet]

46. I'd rather stand with a losing platform than win on a mound of dead bodies.

Reasonable gun regulations are the right thing to do.

[jack_krass]

75. Except that

Wasting time and energy passing more warmed over, also ran gun laws (another capacity limit here, another waiting period there) will do NOTHING to stop gun violence, and will actually result in more deaths because it will prevent fresh, new ideas being discussed about and implemented, ideas which could actually help things.

[Agnosticsherbet]

108. So mass murder is acceptable and ethical concern for human life is not.

I shall continue to advocate reasonable regulations that protect public safety and improve the lives of Americans.

Doing nothing promotes gun
violence.

[jack_krass]

129. No, definitely not

But passing more gun laws will do nothing to prevent killings, and actually detracts from new ideas.

[ColesCountyDem]

130. Says who?

Who says more gun laws will do nothing?

[jack_krass]

133. I do :)

We have laws in place to prevent certain people from getting guns, and waiting periods to prevent impulse buys (both of which I agree with).

Anything on top of that , like:

-cartridge capacity limits
-sueing gun manufacturers
-banning certain semi rifles and handguns

is nothing but hot air, posturing, gives a false sense of "doing something", and (IMO) uselss., Most importantly, this detracts from exploration of fresh ideas.

[Agnosticsherbet]

131. We've tried passing no gun laws for years. We need a different idea.

Doing nothing is an old idea.

[jack_krass]

136. ???

We've tried passing no gun laws for years

WTF? There are thousands of fed and state gun laws.
Oh, you mean no new gun laws right? That's because the old ones are suffifent. For the thousandth time, fixating on new gun laws detracts from focusing on.the root cause. No, the GUNZZZ are not the root cause, I'll leave it as an exercise for you, or someone else to give the root cause.

[Agnosticsherbet]

141. We do not pass regulations because the NRA lobbys

For corporations.

The most immorality organization makes money off ofy every murder.

We've done nothing. It is time we took a right to life as seriously as the right to kill.

[stone space]

123. ^^^^^ THIS! ^^^^^

I'd rather stand with a losing platform than win on a mound of dead bodies.

[shawn703]

48. How many people would vote for Democrats if they held a different stance on just this one issue?

I'm assuming you vote for Democratic candidates even though you don't agree with them on gun control. The people who wouldn't vote for someone based on their stance on something like assault weapons for example, are people who think there's plots involving the UN and the building of secret concentration camps and imminent threat of martial law. In other words, the wild eyed conspiracy theorists currently occupying the fringes of the Republican Party. The Democrats will be just fine advocating for stricter gun control.

[Dwayne Hicks]

109. Yes

I vote for Democrats always and always will. And that is correct I do not agree with the Democratic platform on gun control. Its not realistic, and at times borders on unconstitutional.

[MineralMan]

49. No, thanks.

Really.

[branford]

51. On, boy...

Gun control has clearly been a losing electoral proposition for Democrats since Clinton lost control of Congress after the 1994 AWB (and admitted as much), Gore lost his home state of TN and thus the presidential election, and Democratic losses (moderates and otherwise) on the state and federal level since Obama, where Republicans now control the Senate, have their largest majority in the House in generations, and control more statehouses and governships than ever, speaks for itself.

The belief in the importance of the Second Amendment and an American historical, cultural, and legal individual right to keep and bear arms is so pervasive and important that it's enshrined in the official Democratic Party platform, and support for gun rights and opposition to restrictions is steadily growing and at record highs in many areas (which is only bolstered by the recent Supreme Court decisions).

Nevertheless, many Democrats here and elsewhere still demand purity on advancing strict gun control well beyond the wishes of millions of Democratic gun owners and their supporters (and important moderates and others in competitive states) and the obvious polls.

It doesn't seem to matter that all their efforts have achieved is Democrats losing more elections without any demonstrable chance of passing national (and many state) firearm restrictions (and the ones that pass are often still struck down by the courts).

It's a lose - lose scenario, with fewer Democrats, our entire progressive agenda on all issues is jeopardized and still no gun control is passed.

[hrmjustin]

53. No.

[TeamPooka]

54. Trade my values for votes? No thanks. nt

[Gothmog]

55. I strongly disagree with your analysis and conclusions

This is an important plank for the Democratic party

[pablo_marmol]

71. But you'll tender no evidence to support you statements. Gotcha. NT

[Hoyt]

56. I wonder how many of our gunners would vote for a Republican over gunz.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

78. That does seem to be what they believe a large number of Americans do,

that being anti-gun is actually costing the party votes. Quite frankly, anybody who would vote Republican simply over guns is somebody I don't think belongs in any party even pretending to be on the 'left' of the political spectrum.

[Hoyt]

94. That's my feeling too.

[branford]

95. Many people are one issue voters, including a great many Democrats.

Firearm policy for many Americans across the political spectrum happens to be that one issue, and more importantly, these voters are disproportionately concentrated in very competitive states.

These voters also need not actually vote for Republicans, they could simply stay home. When some competitive elections are decided by a mere handful of votes, and control of both Congress and numerous state governments hinge on the slimmest of majorities, every vote counts.

Simply, alienating millions of Democratic and independent voters over gun policies that will still lack sufficient support to become law is a lose - lose scenario that jeopardizes progressive policies well beyond firearms.

[LittleBlue]

58. Not worth the political capital

We spend immense political capital supporting these measures and it usually ends badly. How many have been recalled for trying to force gun measures on voters that they don't want?

[brer cat]

59. No.

About that "majority" you are a part of:

59% of likely voters favor a ban on assault weapons. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2014/59_favor_assault_weapons_ban_18_want_handgun_ban_too

A majority of Americans support strong, new gun control measures—including the assault weapons bans and broader background checks. http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/poll-majority-americans-support-gun-contr

55 percent -- back a ban on assault weapons. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/14/16510092-poll-majorities-favor-assault-weapons-ban-background-checks?lite

many more but do your own research before you claim to represent the "majority"

[Chan790]

60. No.

Not just No, but Hell No.

[-none]

61. Not only NO, but HELL NO!

Only 35% of citizens own firearms. Of those 35%, most gun owners own several different guns. Some own hundreds and more. And don't forget the ammunition for them.
So all those weapons floating around are because of a small minority, not in any way a majority of anything. The actual fact is most people want a major clamp down on all the firearms flowing mostly unregulated in this country.

All firearms registered to their current owner.
All firearm sales with a 10 day or better waiting period. Needing a firearm right now usually results in a bad ending for someone.
All firearms sales go through a federally licensed gun dealer. (Including inheritance.)
No Internet sales of firearms.
No moving of any firearms across state lines without the proper permits. You want to take your weapon to another state, you must get permission from each state you go through. (Just closing a loop hole here.)
Insurance for all your firearms.

Is well past time to bring civilization to this country. Even the Old West was never this bad.

[Straw Man]

64. Before you get all excited, ...

... consider the following:

All firearms registered to their current owner.

Except for felons -- forcing them to register would violate their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. (It's true. You can look it up.)

All firearm sales with a 10 day or better waiting period. Needing a firearm right now usually results in a bad ending for someone.

Even for people who already own several firearms? How would that possibly protect anyone?

All firearms sales go through a federally licensed gun dealer. (Including inheritance.)

Fine, but who pays? What happens when someone inherits a valuable collection of 50+ historic firearms and the dealer wants $50 per gun to do the transfers?

BTW, currently the only sales that don't have to go through and FFL are sales by non-dealers to residents of the same state. It has nothing to do with gun shows except that some such transactions may take place at or near a gun show. There's no such legal entity as an "unlicensed dealer," and if you know of anyone who fits that description, the ATF would like to hear about it.

No Internet sales of firearms.

Are you aware that Internet sales must go through a licensed dealer in the buyer's home state and require a background check before the buyer can take possession of the gun? Given that, why would you want to ban such sales?

No moving of any firearms across state lines without the proper permits. You want to take your weapon to another state, you must get permission from each state you go through. (Just closing a loop hole here.)

What loophole is that? And how is this going to work? I live in New York near Connecticut. If I want to go skeet shooting in CT, what kind of permit will I need? Will it be a single-use permit, or for a duration of time? What kind of processing time are we talking about? And cost? Will there be checkpoints at state borders? Will I have to be checked again on leaving the state to show that my shotgun is leaving with me? Multiply these issues by 50 and you'll start to get an idea of the difficulties involved.

Insurance for all your firearms.

Totally useless, since insurers will never cover the consequences of a policy-holder's illegal acts. Injuries from negligence are often already covered by homeowner's policies, and in any case are only a very small part of the problem. The only beneficiary of such a requirement would be the NRA, which is currently the major purveyor of firearms insurance.

Is well past time to bring civilization to this country. Even the Old West was never this bad.

Nothing you have suggested will have any such effect. I've seen dozens of these wish lists from people who have only a passing familiarity with any of the practical ramifications of what they propose and aren't ready or willing to discuss what it would really take to "civilize" this country, namely a top-to-bottom overhaul of our legal and political system with the goal of promoting social and economic justice. Much as I'm sure you're speaking from good and humanitarian motives, I can see no real good coming from handing more tools and powers to the Security State.

[pablo_marmol]

74. Bravo, sir.......BRAVO!

[-none]

92. What I see above is just another post that says don't do anything about the slaughter because of

"My Guns" and a faulty interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. What matters to you are you guns over dead people, so let's not do anything.
The bad guys have so many weapons because the "good guys" insist on easy access for more guns for themselves, not realizing they are helping to arm the bad guys also, because lax firearm laws that makes it easier for the bad guys to get their guns too.
Again the Old West had better firearm control than we do now. You did nothing to refute that.
Internet sales do not have to go through a licensed dealer. Only legal sales of weapons from dealers. Plenty of people buy and sell their firearms privately through the internet. No licensed dealer involved. How do they get away with this? For one, because their weapons are not registered. Another way the criminals get their weapons.
Again lax firearm laws and easy access to firearms for the good guy makes it that much easier for the criminals to get their hard to trace weapons. Especially since somewhere along the line, it has to be a good guy selling to the criminals. Most of the criminals weapons are not stolen. They are bought legally.
You are reaching in each and every point you made above.

[Straw Man]

115. Then you have profoundly misunderstood.

What I see above is just another post that says don't do anything about the slaughter because of

"My Guns" and a faulty interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. What matters to you are you guns over dead people, so let's not do anything.

I was wondering when that canard would come out. Your invocation of the blood of innocents as a justification for whatever spur-of-the-moment wish list of gun control you care to fling against the wall devalues your entire argument.

What I'm telling you is that your proposals won't help prevent violence and will do further damage to the already intensely polarized American polity. But if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy because you've "done something," then go ahead. Just don't expect to be welcomed with open arms when you come back with your next round of "common sense" regulations after the first batch fails to accomplish much of anything.

I don't recall having said anything about the Second Amendment.

The bad guys have so many weapons because the "good guys" insist on easy access for more guns for themselves, not realizing they are helping to arm the bad guys also, because lax firearm laws that makes it easier for the bad guys to get their guns too.

Is that what you think the resistance to gun control is about? Easy access? Let me disabuse you of that peculiar notion right away.

I live in one of the most highly regulated states in the Union, yet when the last raft of gun control bills passed our legislature, some of our lawmakers proclaimed from the floor that "this is just the beginning" and "there's more to come." Yet I'm told that "the slippery slope is an NRA myth," that "nobody's coming for your guns." These are transparent lies. There is nothing short of a total ban on private ownership of firearms that would satisfy these latter-day Carrie Nations.

Easy access? In my state, we've never had that. Every gun owner I know who resists these proposals sees them as the thin end of the wedge, the camel's nose in the tent, the next step down the slippery slope. And the rhetoric I'm reading here suggests that they are right.

Again the Old West had better firearm control than we do now. You did nothing to refute that.

You did nothing to support it -- nary a quote, statistic, nothing. "That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence," or something like that.

Internet sales do not have to go through a licensed dealer. Only legal sales of weapons from dealers. Plenty of people buy and sell their firearms privately through the internet. No licensed dealer involved.

You are woefully uninformed. I have bought and sold many guns on the Internet. Every single sale had to be completed through a licensed dealer and was subject to a background check. Federal law makes no distinction between Internet sales and any other kind: interstate sales must go through a licensed dealer and therefore a background check.

As with any sale, the only exception to the federal requirement for background checks is private sales between unlicensed residents of the same state -- the so-called "gun show loophole." (Some states have their own laws that disallow this exception.) This is irrespective of where the sale takes place, and has nothing to do with either gun shows or the Internet.

Go look at Gunbroker.com; look at Gunauction.com. Read the Terms of Service. Read the listings. Most of the sellers are licensed dealers, and the ones that aren't will only ship an FFL. These auction sites even offer a service to help buyers find an FFL in their area to receive the shipment. You can inveigh against the "gun show loophole" if you like, but don't try to pretend that the Internet is some kind of firearms bazaar where the normal rules do not apply. That would be ... dishonest.

Again lax firearm laws and easy access to firearms for the good guy makes it that much easier for the criminals to get their hard to trace weapons. Especially since somewhere along the line, it has to be a good guy selling to the criminals. Most of the criminals weapons are not stolen. They are bought legally.

Hard to trace? What does that have to do with keeping guns out of criminal hands? Could you explain how tracing a gun will help?

I wouldn't call a straw purchaser a "good guy." A straw purchaser is a gun trafficker -- a "bad guy" who just hasn't been caught yet. I would like to see aggressive investigation and prosecution of gun traffickers. We have the legal tools we need; what we lack is the will. It makes me question the sincerity of our supposed commitment to reducing gun violence. Call me cynical, but why are 4473 violations never prosecuted? Every time a prospective buyer who has "lied and been denied" walks out the door, a trafficker has been given a free pass to try again another day.

If we devoted a fraction of the resources we waste on the War on Drugs to the War on Guns, we would see real progress in gun violence. One suspects that this is not the real goal.

You are reaching in each and every point you made above.

An unsupported opinion. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate.

[-none]

121. You can start here

This first one is not very long, so I won't quote from it.

5 Indefensible Tweets From The NRA Since The Oregon Gun Massacre
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/07/3709919/tweets-nra-oregon-shooting/

Gun Control and the Old West
https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html
Pioneer publications show Old West leaders repeatedly arguing in favor of gun control. City leaders in the old cattle towns knew from experience what some Americans today don't want to believe: a town which allows easy access to guns invites trouble.
What these cow town leaders saw intimately in their day-to-day association with guns is that more guns in more places caused not greater safety, but greater death in an already dangerous wilderness. By the 1880s many in the west were fed up with gun violence. Gun control, they contended, was absolutely essential, and the remedy advocated usually was usually no less than a total ban on pistol-packing.
The editor of the Black Hills Daily Times of Dakota Territory in 1884, called the idea of carrying firearms into the city a “dangerous practice,” not only to others, but to the packer himself. He emphasized his point with the headline, "Perforated by His Own Pistol."
The editor of the Montana’s Yellowstone Journal acknowledged four years earlier that Americans have "the right to bear arms," but he contended that guns have to be regulated. As for cowboys carrying pistols, a dispatch from Laramie’s Northwest Stock Journal in 1884, reported, "We see many cowboys fitting up for the spring and summer work. They all seem to think it absolutely necessary to have a revolver. Of all foolish notions this is the most absurd."

And then there is this:

Guns in the wild west: regulated, with no fears about ripping the Constitution
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/24/guns-wild-west-48208/
Summary: An oddity of the New America is how we stumble when dealing with problems solved not just by our peers in other developed nations, but in our past. Gun control is but one example. Other nations, our peers in the developed world, have accomplished what we’re told is impossible for Americans: reducing gun ownership. In our past we were able to regulate guns without cries that we shredded the Constitution (the subject of today’s post). In brief, we see ignorance and amnesia — what conservative leaders consider ideal qualities for citizens.

My opinion are supported, btw.

Hard to trace? What does that have to do with keeping guns out of criminal hands? Could you explain how tracing a gun will help?

Simple, being able to trace a firearm back to its last know legal owner of record, helps find who the so-called "good guy" is that is selling to the bad guys. You know the straw purchasers?
Oh, you think straw buyers/sellers are bad guys? They think they are good guys, the 2nd Amendment being sacrosanct and absolute and all that.

[Straw Man]

122. Nothing to see there.

Last edited Sat Oct 10, 2015, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Your first link takes me to a story about a vigilante shooting in a Home Depot parking lot. In any case, I'm sure the NRA has tweeted many egregious things, but they weren't the topic of discussion, were they?

Interesting "Wild West" links, but none that prove your contention that any of these attempts were successful in creating a less violent society than the one we live in today. Oh, and by the way, open carry is banned in many states today, probably affecting a larger portion of the territory and population than was covered by the individual municipal ordinances that you are referring to.

Your opinions may very well be supported, but it's incumbent on you to provide that support to the reader; that's how this discussion thing works.

Simple, being able to trace a firearm back to its last know legal owner of record, helps find who the so-called "good guy" is that is selling to the bad guys. You know the straw purchasers?

You realize that this is only after the gun has fallen into police hands, generally after being used in a crime. And yet still traceable via the bound book of the dealer who sold it, unless the serial number has been defaced, as criminals sometimes do. But in many cases it will only lead back to the person it was stolen from or to "some guy on the corner," one of the many sets of hands it passed through on its way to the crime. We could pursue straw-purchase traffickers at the source, using their perjured 4473 forms after a failed buy attempt. But we don't, again calling into doubt our real dedication to combatting gun violence.

Oh, you think straw buyers/sellers are bad guys? They think they are good guys, the 2nd Amendment being sacrosanct and absolute and all that.

I'm sure criminals have all kinds of ways of rationalizing their behavior. They are still criminals. I don't "think" so; I know so.

[-none]

124. No it doesn't. The first link takes you to a list debunking five of the NRA's talking points.

The other two links are known history. The first link is from NDSU, The North Dakota State University.
North Dakota is a Republican Red State and NDSU is a State University funded by and run by the state of North Dakota. And you don't give them any credence?
The second link is a well know page backing up the first link.

It's hard to reason with someone that can't see the obvious. You'd make a very poor investigator.
You remind me of this saying:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair

For obvious reasons, I really doubt that you are being paid though.

[Straw Man]

125. Now it does. Last night it didn't.

In the future, post the content as well as the link. Then bad links won't undermine your point.

Again, the NRA's tweets have nothing to do with the matter at hand. I've already explained to you that the background-check exemption for intrastate private sales has nothing to do with either gun shows or the Internet, and in fact could just as easily be called the "yard sale loophole" or the "classified ad loophole," but you prefer to continue disseminating misinformation suggesting that there are exemptions for gun show or Internet sales. I'm not sure why you want to mislead the public this way.

Your Wild West links only show that there were municipalities that banned open carry of firearms, and say nothing about the efficacy of these measures or how they relate to open carry laws today. I never questioned their veracity; only their relevance.

As far as I can see, you're in no position to question my investigative or interpretive skills. Your snide comments reflect only on your rhetorical inadequacies, not mine.

[Duckhunter935]

126. I know they want to mislead people

They think they are stupid and elk not know the actual facts. One of the reasons they always lose.

[lancer78]

62. Are you on crack?

Read the 2012 Dem convention platform about gun rights.

[Dwayne Hicks]

65. What about it?

Guns will never be banned and should not be. We ahould increase funding for mental health. And yes Democrats need to drop it its not happening in todays climate and only costs votes which enables republicans to gain seats.

[lancer78]

66. If you read it

you will see that democrats HAVE dropped any mention of banning guns from the party platform.

[branford]

67. That's not entirely clear, and certainly debatable.

While the Democratic Platform indeed recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms and claims to want to preserve the Second Amendment, it does advocate a number of general (and ambiguous) "commonsense improvements" to our gun laws, including reinstating the assault weapons ban.

The platform definitely doesn't advocate draconian bans that many here on DU appear to want (which would likely be unconstitutional), but it does support some gun bans nonetheless.

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[pablo_marmol]

72. As branford as pointed out, "assault weapon" bans have been the centerpiece

of liberal angst for decades.......and for no good reason. How dishonest and moronic is it to want to ban a particular rifle based on the way it looks, rather than functions?

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

[Skittles]

134. it's very difficult, debating someone who believes NRA propaganda

so fucking stupid

[pablo_marmol]

146. As it's very difficult debating someone who believes that certain guns

should be banned based on the way the look rather than the way they function.

I mean --- how idiotic is that?!

[Recursion]

70. Bullshit. It's time for us to have a smarter gun control platform

Focus on "who" rather than "what".

[aikoaiko]

90. This is where I fall as well.

Regulations that involve due process and appeals to prohibit gun possession are a better way to go than arbitrary bans or restrictions on amounts.

[pablo_marmol]

73. I agree.......great post.

I would just add that "gun control" is not just a political loser, it's morally bankrupt as well......given the fact that now even the CDC recognizes high numbers of defensive gun uses. Funny how quiet "control" supporters who've been beefing about lack of CDC research are about this fact, isn't it?

I'm a big supporter of Bernie Sanders, and am hoping that if HRC gets the nomination my comrades won't sit the election out. 'Cause if they do, with all of Hillary's rhetoric we may end up with a Republican in the White House. (Al Gore vs Bush replay)

What a friggin' nightmare that would be.

[grntuscarora]

76. No.

nt

[CTyankee]

81. Well, once again, from the "no can do" caucus...

yup. We won WW2 and put a man on the moon but we sure can't solve the gun issue in this country. Great attitude.

[NaturalHigh]

82. You have my vote, Dwayne.

[Paladin]

83. Not a chance. (nt)

[drray23]

85. politics should not be about supporting what you think is popular

and ignoring the tough issues. A true politician should be advocating for issues that they believe in.
With this kind of thinking, we would never have gotten the voting rights act, we would still be under segregation.
After all, when all of this was passed it was not popular. The president had to send the national guard to some of the southern states to enforce it.

[IDemo]

89. Let's now legalize murder, armed robbery, rape and assault

After all, laws don't prevent criminals from acting, so what good are they?

Right?

[Punkingal]

91. +1000

[Straw Man]

128. Do tell.

Let's now legalize murder, armed robbery, rape and assault

After all, laws don't prevent criminals from acting, so what good are they?

Right?

Well, considering that we don't offer exemptions to the murder, armed robbery, rape, and assault laws for police and the military, I guess we'd have to conclude that the laws regulating firearms are categorically different and that firearms possession is not malum in se.

Right?

[hunter]

93. My guns! My guns! Don't insult my guns!

Whine, whine, whine...

Gun fetishes are a very strange thing.

There's no serious political movement that's a threat to the average hunter, or anyone else who uses and safely keeps a gun or two for utilitarian purposes like hunting. Meat obtained by hunting with the proper permits is probably more ethical than most factory farm meat in the grocery store.

People get weird however when they start to accumulate guns and ammunition as a security blanket, keeping guns as fetish items that will magically keep away invading North Koreans and scary mass media stereotype rapists.

We could ban the manufacturer and importation of all guns tonight and there still would be no shortages of guns in the U.S.A. for a century. Guns are not like alcohol, they're not all gone after one shot. The majority of people wouldn't even notice the passing of the industry.

People are rightly concerned about the "gun culture" itself, all of it -- cops, gangsters, guns and ammo enthusiasts -- the most dangerous killers are the unhinged among those groups. Ordinary people don't need guns to feel safe or in control.

[Skittles]

135. they're paranoid idiots

seriously

[hunter]

138. Yep. Those who haven't experienced gun violence or can't imagine it as something bad...

... even as they pull the trigger against themselves or others... they are idiots.

Anyone who survives that sort of thing without severe damage to their own soul is a psychopath.

[Vinca]

96. No. It's too important. Our lives depend on it.

If we lose, at least we can say we tried when the next classroom of children is slaughtered. I can't imagine not trying.

[GOLGO 13]

100. I agree with the OP.

Nothing more to add.

[Logical]

101. I agree, will only cost us votes. nt

[Pathwalker]

102. If they do drop it, they'll lose even more votes,

like mine, and my family's. When gun violence hits home, it affects your perspective.
Some of us don't automatically think it means more guns everywhere is a good idea. I would just stay home and not vote, and I'm not alone.

[Turbineguy]

103. Won't somebody please think of

the funeral directors who would be economically impacted by gun control legislation?

[LanternWaste]

107. No doubt, the little mind favors political expedience over personal conviction

No doubt, the little mind favors political expedience over personal conviction, and pretends that we must not do such and such anymore because it's bad branding-- yet offers zero objective, peer-reviewed support for that dramatically absurd premise... all the while, maintaining the pretense of concern for the Democratic party to better camouflage his actual biases.

[davidn3600]

113. Effective gun control is a fantasy while the 2nd amendment stands

It is what it is.

And don't give me the bullshit about interpretation. That amendment was written in colonial times when guns were everywhere. James Madison, who wrote the amendment, believed everyone should have a gun and it was the best safeguard against tyranny.

Now maybe the amendment is obsolete and needs to be changed. But we can't just pretend it doesn't exist! It's the law of the land until it is changed. it's as simple as that. And if you don't have the votes to change it, then it doesn't change. We are a nation of laws. This isn't a dictatorship where someone can just wave their hand and eliminate part of the Bill of Rights or pretend it doesn't apply anymore. That's not how it works.

[akbacchus_BC]

114. Just stop your idiotic conversation about gun control! It is about time that the US curb who gets

a gun. When you see children being gunned down and the time it takes for a person to get access to a gun, it is unbelievable, 72 hours, are you kidding me?

Perhaps you do not care about people in your society or you live in a place where you have guns that is tantamount to being ridicolous. Do guns define your manhood or you just want to own guns? And when are you going to use those guns?

[pablo_marmol]

118. An article written over ten years ago for The Nation......

.......more true now than when it was written:

http://www.thenation.com/article/democrat-killer/

[RiverLover]

120. Thanks for posting this article, I read it twice.

I think it may have swayed my thinking on this issue some. I'm not awake enough to coherently go into detail on how, but the line "We had the debate & lost" and now we are losing many many votes due to this one issue, and there are so many millions of guns already out there....it sadly just makes sense....

[craigmatic]

119. sometimes you don't have something in a platform because it's a winner. Sometimes you do it because

it's the right thing. Eventually the nra's strangle hold on politicians will break and we can get this done until then fight the good fight.

[workinclasszero]

132. NRA BS propaganda...gee nothing can be done

to stop school kids being gunned down twice a week, so sorry.

Reality? Australia.

But Americans are so in love with their death machines and the money to be made off them they choose to sacrifice their own children on the bloody altar of guns.

[Iggo]

137. No, it's not. But thank you for your concern.

[frustrated_lefty]

140. You're right, a universal ban would be far preferable.

[we can do it]

142. Fuck no.

[flamingdem]

143. While the Repukes are weak it's a good time to kick ass on gun nuttery

It's going to happen, get used to it

[ThePhilosopher04]

147. I hope your guns get confiscated along with every other firearm on the planet.

Guns are for wussies.

[mvd]

148. I don't agree; guns are an unavoidable issue

While we can't prevent every shooting with gun control, we certainly can prevent some. First, the universal background checks are necessary because of criminals and mentally lll possibly getting guns. It should be jail time when a gun is used in a crime. I support licensing like with cars. Registration is a bit of a tricky issue - don't want too much prying in, but perhaps guns should have a serial number so some can be tracked if needed. Trying an outright ban of guns may just not be feasible, and could even backfire. But we had the automatic weapons ban before, and gun owners were fine. Any sensible steps should be looked into.

[Recursion]

149. We still have an automatic weapons ban. We have for 80 years.

I like registration, but it's a non-starter right now. Licensing is a great idea.

[mvd]

153. Hi Recursion

I should have said bring back the assault weapons ban; I got that mixed up.

[Recursion]

154. I'm curious, why would you like it brought back?

It regulated the grip shape and availability of bayonet lugs on semi-automatics.

I literally don't understand why anybody cares about that. If you can tell me what mattered about it to you, I'm happy to listen.

[mvd]

157. It was working well

Really no need to get rid of it

[Recursion]

159. I agree; I literally don't care about it either way.

It didn't actually restrict access to firearms; it simply regulated the grip shape of a certain class of them, and denied bayonet lugs to civilians. Civilians probably shouldn't have bayonets, so I'm fine with that, but I'm also not aware of a real problem that solved.

But, anyways, even George W. Bush agreed to sign the law if Congress passed it again, and Congress couldn't be bothered to.

If you look at the Sandy Hook horror, that was with a weapon from a state with an AWB (several states continued them after the Federal ban expired). It was a completely legal weapon because you could not attach a bayonet to it. Yes, seriously. Is this actually worth losing even a single seat over?

[mvd]

162. Well I think attitudes may be changing

All the tragedies going on. Should be mentioned, but I do not think guns should overshadow our populist message.

[beevul]

163. How so?

What was it doing well?

[mvd]

164. I don't feel I need to explain

Everyone supported it except the most extreme. But if you need to know, even neutral studies credited it with a small reduction in gun crimes. And any helps.

[beevul]

165. Shrug. Ok.

If you want to keep your metric to yourself, so be it.

[oneshooter]

156. Guns have been required to have a"distinctive serial number" since 1934.

The same law that did away with mail order firearms, and established the FFL system at the same time. Many older firearms have no serial numbers and are still quite useable.

[mvd]

158. But do they keep track of them? Seems some sort of registration would be..

something I support.

[oneshooter]

160. Curently a national firearms registration is against Federal Law.

[LynnTheDem]

150. No. It's time for ALL Americans, including the 90% who want gun controls,

to DOUBLE DOWN on getting proper gun controls in place.

[LynnTheDem]

151. Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks

Yeah, that's some "losing" side to be on.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks


Over 90 percent of Americans support gun background checks: poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE9160LW20130207


Time to drag America into the 20th century.


The 21st C will take awhile longer.

[deathrind]

152. Yea...

Gun control is just too hard so let's just forget it. Like Jeb said "stuff happens" or Ben with his bullet riddled bodies are not nearly as tragic as legislating controls around the 2nd Amendment like 100% background checks, waiting periods, mag caps, mandatory safety courses... That stuff is way too hard...

American used to really be an "exceptional" country. We used to do great things like cure disease, go to the moon, build a Democracy,...act reasonable. People around the world really did look up to us but that is not who we are anymore. Doing anything to try and increase the odds of not getting shot when at school or the store or...anywhere is just too hard. So let's just give up...

/facepalm

[Tommy_Carcetti]

155. Yeah.......no. Thanks for playing.

I seem to recall back in the mid 1960s a lot of complaining by some in the party that there was too much focus on civil rights and we'd lose voters over those issues.

And there were politicians who left the Democratic Party over the issue and voters who turned away from the party because of it.

And you know what? Since then, we've still had three Democrats elected president and controlled Congress on numerous occasions. Embracing civil rights did not kill the Democratic Party.

So, yeah.

[lame54]

161. Drop Gun Control To Save Gun Control?