HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » History doesn't repeat, b...

Tue Nov 22, 2016, 05:39 PM

History doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes. Lessons from 2004.

Here's a crosspost to DU from January 2005 that I wrote in late 2004 on the John Kerry Forum (later Common Ground Common Sense), after Kerry was hurt badly in several key swing states by the gun issue, just as Gore was in '00 and Clinton in '16.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (2004)

A lot of JK forum members at the time simply couldn't understand why his talking up hunting and "huntin' guns" didn't defuse the issue, hence the post. Some minor details of the landscape have shifted in the last 12 years, and it wasn't very polished, but the key points still stand, I think.

I can't get to this post from around the same time frame from DU's Virginiamountainman (the old DU archives appear to be down right now), but he hit some of the same themes.

I watched how the gun issue affected the races in '94, '96 (Congressional), '98, '00, '02, and '04. The party started listening and mostly dropped the issue by '06, and Obama largely defused the gun issue in '08 by saying he couldn't ban "assault weapons" even if he wanted to, and implied he didn't. But the Third Way yanked the DNC back to gun bans with a vengeance after 2012, and history repeats.

So, I'll say it One. More. Time. Stop trying to ban people's guns and magazines. Just stop. And before you say "I only want to ban X", just keep in mind that X is most likely just a buzzword for a large subset of "people's guns and magazines."

Please just stop it, dammit.

Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What?
Posted by benEzra in Guns
Wed Jan 05th 2005, 11:33 AM


Some of you may know me as a regular on the Common Ground Common Sense forum, formerly the JK forum. Shortly after the election, I pulled a lot of thoughts together into one document about how the party might stop alienating gun owners so badly. Please read it with an open mind, and post any feedback you'd like. For those of you who hate guns, it may at least help you understand where gun owners like my wife and I are coming from. Thanks!


Democrats and the gun issue: Now what?

First, let me say that I'm a gun owner. Second, I don't hunt.

To some of you, that automatically makes me wierd. After all, aren't most gun owners hunters? Isn't hunting the main reason law-abiding Americans own guns? And aren't hunting guns what most American gun owners are so protective of?

Well--no. And it's this misunderstanding may have just cost the Democratic party another national election. But please hear me out.

After the 2000 election, when Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and pro-union West Virginia--and consequently the White House--over the gun issue, the gun-control group Americans for Gun Safety counseled Democrats that if the party made its support for hunting and hunters vocal enough, and got that message out, then the gun issue would cease to be the black hole sucking votes away from Democrats. The party could push “moderate” gun control such as banning nonhunting guns, and gun owners would feel assured that their gun rights were going to be restricted.

It didn't work out that way this year; the gun issue was still a major factor in this election. Pro-gun Democrats tended to win in pro-gun states, but Democrats who had supported bans on nonhunting guns tended to lose. Here in North Carolina, Democrat Mike Easley (who opposes more gun control and is rated "A" by the NRA) easily won reelection, but nationally known Democrat Erskine Bowles (an ardent supporter of the "assault weapons ban" lost his Senate race to no-name Republican Richard Burr. And many of the same voters who elected our Democratic governor voted against the Democratic presidential ticket. Why?

The leading Democrat in the Senate, Tom Daschle, was hammered at the polls by gun owners and lost to a relative unknown, despite commercial after commercial showing Daschle hunting with a shotgun. Why?

Ohio, where the Presidency was lost, went heavily for Senator Kerry in urban areas, but rural gun owners went heavily for Bush, despite the senator's heavy emphasis on his support for hunting. Why?

The answer is very simple--so simple, in fact, that it’s puzzling why the party has missed it for so long. Let's look at the numbers. It is estimated that there are estimated to between 65 and 80 million gun owners in the United States. There are between 13 and 16 million licensed hunters in the United States. Now do some math. Four out of five gun owners are not hunters. I repeat: 80% of gun owners are not hunters.

So why is the national party trying so hard to recast the protections of the Second Amendment as applying only to hunting firearms, if 80% of gun owners don't hunt and hunting has absolutely nothing to do with 2nd-Amendment jurisprudence? Or to turn the question around--why did party leaders think that demonstrating support for hunters would allow the party to go after nonhunting guns with impunity? Four out of five gunnies don't hunt; is it any wonder that a pro-hunting message didn't win the bloc?

The party platform-writers can talk all they want about supporting the Second Amendment, but if we nonhunters lose the right to choose to own nonhunting-style guns, we have lost our Second-Amendment rights. Period. As a nonhunter, I personally don't care if I am "allowed" to own a skeet shotgun or a slug gun suitable for deer; I want to keep my modern-looking small-caliber self-loader, thanks. I'm a Gen X'er, that's what I grew up thinking was cool, and that's what I as a law-abiding American citizen choose to own. And my wife would just as soon keep her 15-round defensive handgun. And apparently, a lot of gun owners feel the same way I do.

Don't get me wrong. I fully support hunters and the right to hunt-- indeed, the excise taxes my wife and I and millions of others pay on our nonhunting guns and ammunition helps fund the game lands that hunters enjoy. But I wish the Democratic party would practice a bit more tolerance for us law-abiding gun owners who don't fit its narrow ivory-tower stereotype of "acceptable" gun ownership.

In the last two presidential elections, the party has consciously tried to split hunters and wingshooters away from nonhunting gun owners; "we'll go after the hunting vote," goes the logic, "and leave owners of other styles of firearms to the Republicans." But that's bad math, since 80% of gun owners don't hunt, and of the 20% that do, many probably own nonhunting firearms too. And trying hard to win a small percentage of a voting bloc while driving the majority of that bloc--and its most committed and motivated advocates--to your opponent is not the way to win a voting bloc.

The prohibitionists have taken the Democratic party for a ride--straight down. Since September 1994, when prominent Democrats led the charge to ban practically all firearms holding over 10 rounds, restricted civilian long guns based on silly distinctions such as what their handgrips look like, and threw the whole weight of the party's prestige and resources behind the movement to ban nonhunting firearms, the Democrats' once-rising star has plummeted. Backing prohibition of nonhunting guns cost the party control of the House in 1994, cost the party control of the Senate, and has now arguably cost a SECOND hard-fought presidential election. Yet the party's response may once again be to try to repackage its support for additional gun prohibition in yet more "hunter-friendly" rhetoric. Perhaps hunters were taken in by NRA rhetoric, party leaders may think yet again. Perhaps hunters didn't get the message that we support hunting, that we support conservation. Perhaps we need yet more photo-ops in hunting gear, more photo-ops at skeet shoots. But perhaps there's a simpler reason that the party's obvious support for hunting didn't defuse the gun issue. Maybe its because most gun owners don't hunt.

Some leading Democratics still don't get it. Democratic strategist Steve Murphy, listing the things that Democrats should absolutely NOT do in order to stop driving away swing voters, stated emphatically that the party should not abandon the push for additional "moderate" gun control, a position echoed by authoritarians at the Democratic Leadership Council. Unfortunately, what urban ivory-tower strategists consider "moderate"--outlawing various nonhunting-style firearms--is considered "extremist" to a lot of us gun owners. But to these strategists, gun control seems to be the Holy Grail--the party can ditch anything else in its platform, it can lose every presidential election, it can continue its slide in Congress, but it must continue to push for more and more restrictions on the rights of nonhunting gun owners.

What if the Republicans tried something like this? Imagine, if you will, the Republican party trying to woo swing voters by pushing to ban all alcoholic beverages over 10% alcohol content, banning beer and wine based on the shape of the bottle they come in (since beverages in tall, dark-colored bottles "have no nutritional purpose", demonizing wine drinkers as "extremists," and portraying champagne as "the beverage of choice of rapists and drunk drivers"? Although this might appeal to some conservative Baptist teetotolers, who are probably going to vote Republican anyway, do you think this might POSSIBLY hurt the Republican party among the 50% or so of Americans who regularly partake of alcoholic beverages? That would be a really foolish move politically, wouldn't it? Now what if the Repubs didn’t just try this once, but over and over and over and over, losing election after election on the issue but thinking “it’s sure to work next time"?

But that's exactly what the national Democratic party is doing with the gun issue, isn't it? Trying to curry favor with gun-404 urbanites living in states with draconian gun laws, by advocating nationwide restrictions on whatever the gun-prohibitionist lobby tags with a scary name? Labeling people who own nontraditional-looking firearms as “extremists” and “terrorists”? And after every lost election, blaming it on bad talking points and thinking “it’s sure to work next time”? See the problem?

So what can the Democratic party do to defuse this issue? Here's some ideas.

Confront stereotypes. When I say I'm a gun owner, what image of me comes to your mind? A middle-aged white male who talks with a Southern drawl, drives a pickup truck, chews tobacco, likes beer, and owns lots of camoflage clothing? Or do you think of a thirtysomething college-educated guitar-playing, poetry-reading physics geek with glasses and a goatee, who drives a Toyota Camry and is dad to a special-needs kid? Because I'm the latter. I recently worked with a gun owner who happens to be a thirtysomething college-educated black female from New York state who often drives a Lexus to work. And I am married to a gun owner from Cambridge, Massachusetts who grew up in Maine, has a B.A. in English, and studies medieval history for fun.

But let's probe our prejudices a bit further. What if I tell you my most cherished rifle is a SAR-1, a civilian rifle that looks (but does NOT function) like an AK-47? Is your first response to view me as an incipient wacko, full of paranoia about "black helicopters" and "the gubmint"? If so, why? Because all the "AK" owners you've met are like that, or because the media told you to view me like that?

Stop confusing law-abiding gun owners with criminals. Gun crime is a problem. But being tough on law-abiding gun owners is not the same as being tough on crime. It is vital to make that distinction. Any gun is dangerous in the hands of a violent criminal. America's law-abiding gun owners are NOT the problem, and whether we own hunting or nonhunting firearms has nothing to do with it.

As it stands in 2005, the gun control issue isn't about your common street criminal. Criminals are already prohibited from owning a gun. The people who the Feinstein and Schumer and the DLC are fighting to place new gun-ownership-restrictions on are people like my wife and I, who have never had so much as a speeding ticket. Calls for more and more restriction on gun ownership are aimed squarely at us.

Get educated on gun issues.
Democratic politicians should take a closer look at the technical issues involved in gun legislation before jumping on the prohibitionist bandwagon du jour. If an anti-car activist advocating banning Honda Civics with 18" wheels, rear wings, levitation lights, and windshield-washer LED's because they are "race cars" that can "outrun police" and "have no legitimate transportation purpose," do you think the average senator or congressperson would fall for it? No, because they are all familiar enough with cars to know that glow lights and chrome wheels don't make a car go any faster, even if it makes it look faster. But when an anti-gun activist claims that thumbhole target stocks, vertical handgrips, threaded muzzles, or rugged looks make a rifle an "assault weapon" that "out-guns police" and "has no legitimate purpose," many legislators fall for it, because they aren't really all that familiar with guns or gun law. That needs to change.

Whenever a Democrat urges a ban on "weapons of war like AK-47's and Uzi's," he or she looks dishonest to gun enthusiasts familiar with the law, because military AK-47's and Uzi's are already tightly restricted by Federal law, the National Firearms Act of 1934--which, after all, has only been on the books for SEVENTY YEARS. Oh, the prohibitionists didn't tell you that the legislation they gave you didn't ban any military weapons, did they? Just civilian nonhunting firearms like my wife's 15-round Glock handgun. It astounds me that more than ten years after the 1994 "assault weapons ban" was passed, many politicians and respected media organizations were still reporting that the ban covered "automatic weapons" or "weapons of war" or "machine guns." When all anyone had to do was go to the BATFE web site and read the Federal Firearms Law FAQ to find that this was 100% wrong.

When leading Democrats seek to ban any ammunition capable of piercing body armor--which practically ANY centerfire rifle caliber will do--why are they surprised when rifle owners feel threatened? (Yes, even grandpa's old .30-30 Winchester deer rifle will drill through level II or IIIA body armor like it's not there.) Oh, the prohibitionists didn't tell you that Kevlar body armor is only designed to stop handgun rounds, did they? But ten minutes' research would have revealed that--if any Democratic strategist had bothered to check.

I could go on. About the myth that a nontraditional-looking 9mm handgun like a civilian Uzi lookalike will “blow a deer to smithereens,” even though it is only one-seventh as powerful as an ordinary .30-06 hunting rifle. Or the canard that rifles with vertical handgrips are “designed to be spray-fired indiscriminately from the hip,” even though a vertical handgrip is more ergonomic than a conventional grip for shooting from the shoulder based on simple human forearm anatomy. Or the claim that the .223 Remington is an ultra-powered super-bullet too powerful for civilians to own, even though it’s the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle cartridges. Or that my SAR-1 is a “weapon of mass destruction” that can “penetrate police body armor from a thousand yards away.” Yeah, right. And my Toyota Camry goes 200 miles per hour and gets 150 mpg. Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

Maybe Democratic politicians should hire a few pro-gun staffers (not just pro-hunting, but pro-gun in the broader sense) to try to expose these embarassing details before introducing wrongheaded legislation or issuing inane press releases. And maybe the party should view prohibitionist talking points about "assault weapons" and "cop-killer bullets" and "sniper rifles" and "pocket rockets" with the same skepticism they currently reserve for NRA pronouncements.

Pro-gun Democrats--and gun-ambivalent Democrats who don't see the point in alienating tens of millions of voters for no good reason--need to take back the party from the prohibitionists. People like Senator Charles Schumer, who thinks the shape of a rifle's stock affects its lethality, or that a puny 9mm Luger is too powerful/lethal for "civilians" to own (but is OK with "civilians" owning .338 Lapua magnums and 12-gauge shotguns), have absolutely no business setting the party's gun policy.

Don't try to gauge public opinion from "push polls." Perhaps one reason the party was sucked into banning over-10-round- and nontraditional-looking guns in the first place were all the polls claiming that 70% or more Americans favor banning them. But such figures typically come from push polls that misrepresent what the ban actually covers (i.e, "Do you favor outlawing rapid-fire military-style assault weapons that out-gun police and are designed to quickly kill large numbers of people in a very short time," blah blah blah). If instead you ask, "Should all firearms that hold over 10 rounds, like the handguns police carry, be outlawed for civilian use?" you might get a somewhat different response, no?

Remember that nonhunters have gun rights, too. Standing up for hunters is great, and should be applauded. But hunters are only a small fraction of law-abiding gun owners. Don't forget that the rest of us have rights, too.

"Moderate" gun control is already on the books.
Prohibitionists consider banning various classes of nonhunting style firearms as "moderate" gun control. To those of us in flyover country, that's not "moderate." It's extreme.

"Moderate" gun control is restricting automatic weapons, firearms over .50 caliber, cut-down firearms, and explosives; requiring background checks for purchases from any gun dealer, even at a gun show; prohibiting a criminal or anyone adjudicated mentally incompetent from touching a gun; requiring background checks and licensing in order to carry a firearm; strictly regulating when a gun can be drawn and/or used in self-defense; restrictions on armor-piercing handgun ammunition and hypothetical "plastic guns" that could evade metal detectors, and so on. All of the above laws are already on the books.

The line of demarcation between civilian and non-civilian firearms was drawn seventy years ago, by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The gun-control advocates really crossed the line when they shattered that compromise in 1994 and tried to outlaw guns that have been deemed suitable for law-abiding civilians to own for 70 to 130 years. In so doing, they stepped all over the rights of the law-abiding while doing little or nothing about the real criminals. And it motivated gun enthusiasts like me into political activism like no gun-related issue has before or since.

I'm not asking for loosening restrictions. I'm just saying that the huge array of restrictions already on the books is enough; continuing to pile more and more restrictions on the heads of law-abiding gun owners (like saying I can't own a certain rifle because of the way the stock is shaped) is wrongheaded and doesn't address gun misuse at all.

Leave it to the states. Advocating "moderate" gun control may play fairly well in places like Southern California, Massachusetts, New York City, Chicago, and D.C . But what the prohibitionists consider "moderate" can be politically disastrous in pro-gun states like Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Nevada, and West Virginia.

If it is so important for gun-404 residents of NYC or Boston or Chicago or San Francisco (where legal ownership of ALL types of guns is rather difficult) to have a ban on low-powered-but-scary-looking guns to make them feel better, let them work for a LOCAL ban, or at worst a state ban (which is already law in Massachusetts, California, and a few other gun-phobic states) instead of trying to shove a national ban down the throats of people in other states who not only don't want one, but who will politically mobilize and fight tooth and nail to defeat any national candidate that calls for one. That is one key lesson the Democratic party needs to learn from the 2004 election.

So why not just leave it to the states? If the people of California want to make owning a rifle with a black plastic stock a felony, they can. If the people of North Carolina wish to own 15-round handguns, they can. And the issue ceases to be the albatross around the national party's neck.

Many Democrats complain about the NRA's influence in national elections. But if the national Democratic leadership would simply drop the crusade against nonhunting guns, the NRA wouldn't even CARE who won. Internet gun forums like the Firing Line and the High Road would once again go back to debating whether 9mm or .45 is the most versatile caliber, or whether .223 Remington is better than 7.62x39mm, instead of organizing to defeat the (mostly Democratic) politicians behind the ban du jour. And I'd be spending more time at the shooting range instead of blogging away at a computer.

It appears that at least some Democratic leaders are beginning to understand. Senator Russ Feingold, who voted for the original ban on nontraditional-looking and over-10-round guns in 1994, rethought the issue and voted against renewing the ban in 2004. And he won reelection.

So, now what? In light of this past election, will the party now stop, leave the issue up to the states, and leave law-abiding owners of nonhunting guns alone? Will the party now stay out of our gun safes, instead of risking election after election in order to get "just a little more" restrictions on the rights of law-abiding nonhunters?

Is the national party going to respect the Second Amendment rights of ALL gun-owning Americans, or just support only the relatively small fraction that chooses to hunt? Is outlawing nontraditional-looking guns really the single most important plank in the entire Democratic party platform, or will the party finally drop it--DROP IT--and move on to the issues the leadership says are more important? Will the party continue to present owners of nonhunting guns with the choice of "vote non-Democrat, or else"?

You tell me. And the other tens of millions of gun-owning nonhunters like me.

We'll be listening.

I wrote that almost exactly twelve years ago. And the party is still making the same damn mistakes, even though rifle and magazine bans play even worse now than they did then.


10 replies, 5554 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply History doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes. Lessons from 2004. (Original post)
benEzra Nov 2016 OP
spin Nov 2016 #1
jmg257 Nov 2016 #2
spin Nov 2016 #3
Eleanors38 Nov 2016 #4
pablo_marmol Nov 2016 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2017 #6
exfthings Sep 2017 #7
krispos42 Nov 2017 #8
melm00se Nov 2017 #9
jimmy the one Nov 2017 #10

Response to benEzra (Original post)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 02:30 AM

1. Gun owners are a significant block of voters in our nation. ...

Many own semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 for sporting, target shooting and home defense. Even if they don't, they do not want to see another Federal Assault Weapons Ban. They consider that to be a small step to further bans on semi automatic rifles and eventually to semi automatic pistols.

Hillary once said an Australian gun buy back program was an idea worth considering. That might have sounded fine to most people but gun owners know it was not a voluntary program but mandatory. It was effectively gun confiscation.

Hillary Clinton Says A National Gun Buyback Program Is ‘Worth Considering’
The NRA says she wants to “confiscate” your guns.
10/16/2015 06:06 pm ET

It’s “worth considering” whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire.

A man in the audience asked Clinton whether she thought it would be possible for the U.S. to enact such a program, and if not, why. Gun buybacks have happened at the metropolitan level in the U.S., but any effort at the national level would be sure to run into intense political opposition.

Clinton, for her part, seemed open to the idea.

“Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have had mass killings” she said. “Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.”

Australia’s mandatory gun buyback program of semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns was enacted after a shooter killed 35 people in 1996. The country bought back more than 650,000 weapons. (...emphasis added)

To be fair to Hillary she may not have realized the program was mandatory. She was asked a question she may not have prepared for and she gave a quick answer. However even if Hillary "misspoke" she never corrected that response by saying that she was not in favor any mandatory gun confiscation program but instead was for a voluntary buy back program.

Many firearm owners have a considerable amount of money invested in their firearms and quite often such weapons turn out to be excellent investments. What the government may consider a fair price for a weapon might not take in consideration the value the weapon might gain over the years. Often shrewd investment in a gun collection can yield more than an investment in the stock market especially in difficult times.

Even the firearm owner with only several firearms does not want to turn them into the government. They will agree that efforts should be taken to remove firearms from the criminal element and those who should never have them to begin with. Most feel current laws are not stricky enforced and anyone with a criminal record caught illegally carrying a firearm should spend a long time in prison. They feel that all too often such people get off with a slap on the wrist or plea bargain the charge down to a much lower level.

So firearm owners, especially those who have money in the game, show up at the pools and vote. That vote may tip the results in close elections. It is my opinion that in recent years the gun owner vote has cost the Democratic Party many elections at the local, state and national levels and also kept several Democratic candidates out of the White House.

The gun owner vote may also have hurt Romney in his try to beat Obama. Romney was not viewed by gun owners as a true supporter of gun rights. Many just decided to stay home and not vote.

Finally many gun owners felt Hillary would put very liberal Justices on the Supreme Court and over the years the Second Amendment would be castrated and rendered worthless.

In my opinion the Democratic Party needs to drop the push for strong gun control such as another assault weapons ban in the future and make that absolutely clear to the voters. In a few years we may once again win close elections when the gun owners vote for Democrats once again. Unfortunately the chances of that happening are realistically like my chances of winning the Lotto if I don't bother to buy a ticket but find one on the street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to spin (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 09:55 AM

2. Hmm...Hillary may not have known Australia had a mandatory buyback?

Also possible she didn't know Heller wasn't about Child locks.
And maybe she didn't really think the USSC was wrong on the 2nd.
And possibly she didn't think American dealers and manufacturers are greedy and reckless.
And she could have wavered on assault weapons again.

It would make some sense - guns certainly wasn't such a focal point when she ran against Pres Obama in '08.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jmg257 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 23, 2016, 03:35 PM

3. I'm a year older than Hillary. ...

Sometimes people of our age forget things.

Hillary may have forgot how her husband Bill stated that gun control had cost the Democratic Party dearly.

Clinton recalled Al Gore’s 2000 campaign against George W. Bush in Colorado, where a referendum designed to close the so-called gun show loophole shared the ballot with the presidential ticket. Gore publicly backed the proposal, while Bush opposed it.
Though the referendum passed with 70 percent of the vote, Gore lost the state. Clinton said that the reason was because a good chunk of the referendum’s opponents were single-issue voters who automatically rejected Gore as anti-gun.
And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to benEzra (Original post)

Fri Nov 25, 2016, 01:38 PM

4. Great essay! A Top-Ten hit that has charted again...


It remains a mystery the depth to which the gun-control issue remains lodged in Democratic Party outlook. I can only speculate the issue is really driven by a the centrist, DNC Beltway outfit which uses the issue as a culture war equivalent of the murder-mouthing that spurts from RW talk radio, and a means by which so-called liberal/progressives can get in on the same game. The issue is a curious and pointed departure from the 3rd Way "No Labels" approach the Party has cultivated since it began its pro-corporate drift in the 1970s. But if it was to be a heat sink by which ideological content could be sparked off, it has proven instead to be a lightening rod held by clueless hacks during a thunderstorm. But the need for passion in a jargon-jiving political approach is great, and it would seem this issue is locked in as the best the Party can offer in a time when it has been out flanked by a rightward drift in our country, even as it eschews bright line stands.

Perhaps this has bearing on the conundrum, but I note in the Gallup graph around early 2012 where indies diverged sharply from Dems on the question of "assault weapons bans," whereas the trend in 2000 seems wholly different. Perhaps the American public -- esp. regarding indies -- has weighed the issue and discerned the B.S. of the various arguments, and changed its outlook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to benEzra (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 02:53 PM

5. *Outstanding* post, benEzra. Thanks for your good work! NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to benEzra (Original post)

Fri Sep 8, 2017, 09:23 PM

6. Just a kick and a reminder

I read this one over every so often and just ponder what restrictionists are thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 01:12 AM

7. Agreed


I always vote (D), but hang around/work with lots of (I)s who lean heavily on this issue. It does a lot of damage to us during elections, and is a losing proposition. Why don't we take Pres. Obama's example on this one? His example will not lead us wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to benEzra (Original post)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 09:34 AM

8. Kicking for eyeballs

Doubtless there will be another upkick in the lines, but the overall trend is informative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to benEzra (Original post)

Mon Nov 13, 2017, 08:07 AM

9. This is an outstanding essay

too bad that it is relegated to this forum only thus prevented from getting a wider read.

If you posted this in "General Discussion" it would be alerted on before your hand got away from the enter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to benEzra (Original post)

Fri Nov 17, 2017, 01:17 PM

10. you ain't seen nothin', like the mighty Quinn

ezra: So, I'll say it One. More. Time. Stop trying to ban people's guns and magazines. Just stop. And before you say "I only want to ban X", just keep in mind that X is most likely just a buzzword for a large subset of "people's guns and magazines."

No. It. Isn't.
Paranoia, big destroya.

Come all without, come all within You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quinn.

The gallup data you posted is one year old, oct 2016. Have you seen the latest nov 2017 from quinnipiac?

Support for an assault weapons/rifle vendor ban is at 65%, and twice the percentage for those who oppose it (you ezra, & most all this rkba board). You are currently outnumbered two to one nationwide, and align with the rightwing outlook.
Note the overall 20% INCREASING support for a vendor ban on assault rifles the past 5 years.

Quinnipiac University. Nov. 7-13, 2017. N=1,577 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"Do you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?"
............Support Oppose Unsure/No answer
11/7-13/17 ... 65 31 5
10/5-10/17 ...64 32 4
6/21-27/16 .. 59 37 4
12/16-20/15 .. 58 38 4
3/26 - 4/1/13 .. 59 36 4
2/27 - 3/4/13 .. 54 41 6

"Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States?"
.............Support Oppose Unsure/No answer
11/7-13/17... 60 36 3
Republicans ... 32 64 4 .. (btw, this is a democrat board, not republican).
Democrats .... 83 15 2
Independents.. 62 35 3
10/5-10/17... 60 36 3


Quinn is only one poll, which needs be corroborated tho. Below for perusal, the CNN question is different - also bans mfr & possession of, as gallup's did, while the mighty quinn just bans the sale of.

~ CNN: ban on manufacture, sale and possession of Hi-power rifles/semi-auto fire, such as AR15.
Favor Oppose Unsure
10/12-15/17 ... 49 49 3

Taken together, both polls shatter the gallup contentions of a year ago. You're OP is outdated, you're now in the minority, or parity at best.
Sorry to rain on your parade. Better rain than a bumped ar15 on the 30th floor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread