Oh my god! WOW!


PDA






NCGUN
August 7, 2005, 07:20 PM
This from the Democrat Leadership Council:

http://www.dlc.org/documents/AGS_Penn_1003.pdf


NOTE pages 8-28

If you enjoyed reading about "Oh my god! WOW!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rebar
August 7, 2005, 07:25 PM
Summary:

lie that we support the 2nd amendment, and maybe we'll fool more people into voting for us.

MarkDido
August 7, 2005, 07:28 PM
Yeah, the Left tried to pass off Kerry as a "gun owner and hunter" - Remember his description of how he liked to get "get down on his belly and stalk deer with his 12 gauge?" Uh huh!

Zundfolge
August 7, 2005, 07:33 PM
Rebar nails it

Baba Louie
August 7, 2005, 07:38 PM
Maybe, just maybe, a certain group of politicians are becoming aware that a good percentage of American voters actually know and believe that Americans are, by their very history and bent, imbued with the thought that they have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Keeping the King of England and marauding savages at bay, protecting the family, farm and field... not to mention a free state.

Maybe, just maybe...

NAAAAHHHH

Interesting study and group of questions polled. Makes me wonder from whom and whence their responses came.
Look for the Dems to propose adding .50 bmg to Class III/NFA arms

SIGarmed
August 7, 2005, 07:42 PM
But hey so called "Americans For Gun Safety" are non-biased.
:barf:

This organization is pathetic.

Silver Bullet
August 7, 2005, 07:56 PM
That document is dated October 2003.

I don't think anybody is listening.

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 07:56 PM
I'm so glad they posted that where everyone could see it.

Awesome. If anything, this will cause a ton of gun grabbers to expose themselves by coming out in favor of "gun safety."

gc70
August 7, 2005, 08:02 PM
This is old news. The Democrats tried being "kinder, gentler gun-grabbers" in 2004 and it didn't work. Watch for the next lie (AHSA?) or way to fool to people.

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 08:37 PM
This organization is pathetic.
Is it? I wonder.

They have really nothing to lose. Politically active gun owners are not going to fall for it, but they were not going to vote democrat anyway.

However, we all know there is a very large segment of gun owners, the hunters and skeet shooters, who are not active and do not belong to the NRA or any other RKBA organizations. They are primarally only worried that their particular sport is protected, and if they can be persuaded that they'll be protected if they throw those crazy handgunners/assalt rifle guys under the bus, then we're in trouble.

There are what, 3 million people in the NRA, and like 80 million gun owners? That 77 million is where the battleground is, and that's what they're aiming for.

I say it's a pretty bold and, potentially, brilliant plan.

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 08:40 PM
Maybe they should count GOA members as being politically active as well. Not all of us wanted to join a left-wing gun-grabbing organization like the NRA. :D

dolanp
August 7, 2005, 08:50 PM
Unfortunately there are probably a lot of hunters that will buy into this kind of stuff. Whenever John Kerry or whomever says you don't need an 'AK-47' to hunt deer they nod their head and agree. If the Dems defeat the 2A they will defeat hunting as well, it's the next logical step for gun grabbers who have the animal rights activists on their side.

Rebar
August 7, 2005, 08:52 PM
If the Dems defeat the 2A they will defeat hunting as well
Divide and conquer, a simple but still valid tactic.

Standing Wolf
August 7, 2005, 08:55 PM
...the Left tried to pass off Kerry as a "gun owner and hunter"

Which is one of the main reasons America cooked his goose last November.

Brett Bellmore
August 7, 2005, 10:17 PM
You misunderstand the point of such organizations. It's not to fool us, it's to provide a service to anti-gun journalists.

In the bizarro world of journalism, making up a source, or falsifying something, is enough to destroy your career if you're caught. But, quoting somebody who's made up a source, or falsified something, without telling your readers you know they're a fraud, is perfectly ok.

These fake pro-gun organizations exist so that journalists can delegate their lying; It doesn't matter that the journalist knows they're a front, all it matters is that he or she can accurately quote the lies they spout, and so publish lies with a clean conscience.

ajax
August 8, 2005, 12:10 AM
Well appearently the gun grabbers didnt take their own advise because that winer Gore said he thought the NRA was the reason he lost. Thank God for the NRA and the dems inability to learn from their mistakes. :neener:

R.H. Lee
August 8, 2005, 12:21 AM
I don't know where they get the numbers, but I think they're underestimating the % of people who own firearms.

MechAg94
August 8, 2005, 12:57 AM
The wording of some of those questions was not good. I would be interested in seeing the quoted wording of all the poll questions asked. As you can see in the endless Presidential polling, how you ask and word the question can significantly skew the results.

onrhander
August 8, 2005, 02:38 AM
If you recived a phone call from a suposed poll and were asked "Do you or any one in your house owen a gun?" would you answer yes? :rolleyes: I wouldn't.Anyone want to bet that the yes answers were 40-60% under stated? :rolleyes: We beleave there are 80,000,000+ gun owners in the US,most of whome vote.If 65% of them vote thats 52,000,000+ votes. I don't have the numbers from 04 but 96-97,000,000 votes seames to ring a bell(If someone can get better #'s please do) If these numbers are any way near correct that's 53+%(just as 80,000,000+ is 41% of the estamited 195,000,000 posable voters.) I also would like to see the excat wording of those poll questions. :uhoh:

TonkinTwentyMil
August 8, 2005, 03:15 AM
Brett Bellmore's got it dead-bang right.

The purpose of Americans For Gun Safety and similar activist-fronts is NOT to convince anyone here. They are targeting the relatively uninformed, the politically-naive and detached, and the politically-malleable voters who lack strong ideological convictions. Their "voice" will be used by politicians and the anti-gun media to peel away these "swing" voters in key precints and states.

Please see the nearby thread re John Lott and the new "American Hunters And Shooters Association."

The 2008 election has already begun.

DelayedReaction
August 8, 2005, 11:51 AM
The document states that 55% of gun owners support renewing the assault ban. That alone makes me suspicious.

Kurush
August 8, 2005, 12:29 PM
The report is from 2003. Support for the AWB is lower now because it expired and the streets did not in fact run with blood (I just checked). Anyway a lot of this is how you ask the question. Remember 50% of the population is below average and even above average people can have a lot of trouble figuring out what a question really means, logically, rather than just making a gut response. So if you ask "Do you think drug users, gang members, and other Americans should be allowed to own AK-47s like the one Osama bin Laden uses?", you could easily bag an 80% negative response from gun owners.

lysander
August 8, 2005, 01:39 PM
From a political standpoint...this is a smart move. Yes the report is from '03, but you can already see the idea seeping into the party across the country. The Democrats will aggressively pursue the "Sportsmen" (meaning the wingshooters and hunters who don't care about the 'doomsday clause' portion of the 2A) vote in the years to come. Just think about the political synergies you could create:
Environmentalists and Sportsmen - both care about the environment. Both groups want to preserve wildlife and wildlife areas. Create a few Dem-supported outdoor groups to put up studies that show how hunting is beneficial and grab the support of both groups.
Police Groups and Citizens - By dropping the hoplophobic part of their gun control schemes and instead addressing the "safety" side (faster background checks, better registration systems, etc.) They reduce the image of being 'after' your guns and instead come across as 'protecting you.'

There's more...but you get the idea....

There was a time in this country when the idea of gun control was ludicrious to both parties. On a personal level I really support neither party...but I acknowledge the fact that the Dems are smart enough to realize that they have drifted too far along to the left and they have alienated many of their centrist constituents.

As an example, why did southern African-American baptists vote in significant numbers against their traditional party? Because they could no longer reconcile their beliefs with the ideas of the extreme left (same sex marriage, abortion rights, etc).

The Dems will continue to smarten up and the pendulum will start to swing back away from the right and more towards the middle...

IHMO :neener:

CAnnoneer
August 8, 2005, 01:53 PM
+1 lysander

benEzra
August 8, 2005, 02:12 PM
However, we all know there is a very large segment of gun owners, the hunters and skeet shooters, who are not active and do not belong to the NRA or any other RKBA organizations. They are primarally only worried that their particular sport is protected, and if they can be persuaded that they'll be protected if they throw those crazy handgunners/assalt rifle guys under the bus, then we're in trouble.
Rebar, that's not a "very large segment," that's a "very small segment." The reason the AGS/DLC strategy of "talk-up-hunting-while-demonizing-nonhunting-guns" backfired so badly in 2000 and 2004 is that only a very small percentage of gun owners are hunters (around 20% and falling), while roughly 80% are nonhunters who own guns primarily for defensive purposes, followed by recreational target shooting. The most desirable firearms for the latter two applications are precisely the ones that the prohibitionists are trying to ban. There are half as many SKS owners alone as there are licensed hunters in this country, and handgunners outnumber hunters by perhaps 3 to 1.

The tiny percentage of gun owners who own a gun or two ONLY for hunting and don't own any guns the anti's are currently fighting to ban, is statistically irrelevant. The mistake the DLC and AGS made was to assume the guy who owns a shotgun for deer hunting is the typical gun owner, when in fact such a person is quite atypical.

Rebar
August 8, 2005, 02:26 PM
benEzra:

Perhaps so. The fact remains the vast majority of gun owners are not NRA or other members, and are not politically active. If half of those joined up, we'd be unstoppable.

RavenVT100
August 8, 2005, 03:53 PM
benEzra:

I'm happy that there are a few Democrats like you, but unfortunately you're wasting your time pushing the issue with your party. On the "stupid" scale, fantasy-based legislation such as the AWB is the Democratic party's own version of Young Earth Creationism. The problem with the Democratic party leadership is that it's so convinced that it can handle current issues analytically and "rationally" that they have not stopped to question the fact that they use hollywood fantasy and prejudice in place of real-world data in evaluating the issue. People who probably would not have an opinion on it either way are tempted to go down the anti-gun path simply because the Democrats tell them so.

Even if you think that voting for a pro-gun Democrat is a good idea, it's more or less a fact that voting for a pro-gun Democrat ultimately helps the Democratic party as a whole, whose ultimate goal is to end civilian ownership of firearms. I don't care if they haven't stated this; the direction they're heading WRT legislation and the progress they've made over the past several decades makes it plainy obvious what their agenda is. I had otherwise intelligent, thoughtful individuals attacking me for not believing Kerry's goosehunt propaganda during the last election--this is how much young people want to believe what the Democrats tell them. But it's not going to be able to be carried on for much longer. People get wise to the fact they're being lied to sooner or later, and the result is never to trust that entity again.

That's not to say I do not vote Democrat on occasion, but at least I'm not disenfranchised like many pro-gun Democrats seem to be.

Byron Quick
August 8, 2005, 04:47 PM
lie that we support the 2nd amendment, and maybe we'll fool more people into voting for us.

Hey, I don't blame the Democrats for trying this tactic. After all, consider how well it has worked for the Republicans.

CAnnoneer
August 8, 2005, 05:16 PM
Regardless of their affiliation, politicians do what works best for them. This has been shown over and over again. Like it or not, too many are anti-gun either by conviction or by ignorance. The real culprit is Hollywood for portraying guns as incredibly destructive, inherently evil, incurably amoral, and the source of all problems. The politicians on either side are just pandering to that general impression among the majority of the public. Say it ain't so.

The reason why the antis have been successful in the past is because they cleverly attacked the outskirts of the normal distribution, going for submachine guns, automatic assault rifles, and most recently, the 50 cal sniper rifle. Let's just admit those things are unrepresentative of the general gun owner, as RavenVT100 pointed out. Ergo, the low resistance to those measures.

But, if the next step is all handguns, I expect the resistance would skyrocket by comparison because a much bigger demographic will find itself under attack. That is why I am not too concerned about any such attack. Note how quietly CA dropped the serialization issue - you could hear a fly buzzing :)

lysander
August 8, 2005, 06:30 PM
Regardless of their affiliation, politicians do what works best for them. This has been shown over and over again. Like it or not, too many are anti-gun either by conviction or by ignorance. The real culprit is Hollywood for portraying guns as incredibly destructive, inherently evil, incurably amoral, and the source of all problems. The politicians on either side are just pandering to that general impression among the majority of the public. Say it ain't so.

The reason why the antis have been successful in the past is because they cleverly attacked the outskirts of the normal distribution, going for submachine guns, automatic assault rifles, and most recently, the 50 cal sniper rifle. Let's just admit those things are unrepresentative of the general gun owner, as RavenVT100 pointed out. Ergo, the low resistance to those measures.

+1 on this Cannoneer! The antis have done an excellent job in the past of picking "weak members" of the pack, separating them and then attacking them. Step One: Give the offending group of firearms an evil name. Step 2: Convince the general (and uninformed public) that the evil use of said group is the rule not the exception. Step 3: Demonize anyone who would defend ownership of said evil implement. Step 4: Attach face to hind end of whatever politico is most interested in photo-ops. Step 5: Enjoy rewards of your work.

Whether it is Assault Weapons, Saturday Night Specials, Sniper Rifles or the like...the antis understand how to manipulate public opinion to their benefit in a way that sometimes I think the pro-gun crowd does not. Part of that is because it is very difficult to make a rational argument against an emotional one.

The core of the anti argument is FEAR....and that is a strong emotion to capitalize on. The core of the pro-gunner argument is SELF RELIANCE and that is, sadly, scary to many people...which creates more FEAR.

Fear is how they run the show my friends....

Fletchette
August 9, 2005, 02:04 AM
This report was very enlightening. What it said, in a nutshell was, let's divide Americans into different groups and see how they feel about gun control. After posing many subtly different questions, how can we form a policy that nets us the most votes?

I find this abhorrent.

"Leadership", as this working group pretends to know something about, is not about marketing or finding "just the right words" to convince Americans that you are not the lesser of two evils. "Leadership" IS about deciding through one's life experiences, education, and fundamental beliefs what is right and what is wrong and persuading your countrymen, sometimes begrugingly, to go along with you.

These people are pathetic. I bet you they had experience marketing soft drinks.

Art Eatman
August 9, 2005, 12:39 PM
Fletchette, I have read Democrat leadership analyses of why they lost. Over and over, they fret about the "Republican packaging and marketing" of their message, as though the packaging and marketing was all-important.

It doesn't seem to occur to the Dems that it's the ideas, themselves, that have any importance or relevance. They believe it's the packaging of the message that sells and gets votes, not the content of the message.

The gun deal is Same Stuff, Different Day...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Oh my god! WOW!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!