[w4rma]

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 26, 2003; Page A01

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Democratic presidential candidates are distancing themselves from tough gun control, reversing a decade of rhetoric and advocacy by the Democratic Party in favor of federal regulation of firearms.

Most Democratic White House hopefuls rarely highlight gun control in their campaigns, and none of the candidates who routinely poll near the top are calling for the licensing of new handgun owners, a central theme of then-Vice President Al Gore's winning primary campaign in 2000.

Howard Dean, the early frontrunner this year, proudly tells audiences the National Rifle Association endorsed him as governor of Vermont. As president, Dean said he would leave most gun laws to the states. The federal government, Dean said in an interview here, should not "inflict regulations" on states such as Montana and Vermont, where gun crime is not a big problem. New York and California "can have as much gun control as they want," but those states -- and not the federal government -- should make that determination, he said.

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, a longtime gun control advocate, is careful to highlight his support for law-abiding gun owners. The Missouri Democrat said he is not interested in giving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives more authority to investigate gun crimes, a top priority for the gun control activist. "They have enough," he said in an interview.

As a result, Democratic strategists and several of the candidates themselves predict the debate over gun laws this campaign will be less divisive. Democrats might fight for narrow proposals to make guns safer and more difficult for children and criminals to obtain, they said, yet voters are likely to hear as much about enforcing existing gun laws as creating new ones -- a position Republicans and the NRA have pushed for years.

"What you are seeing . . . is a sea change" from the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton and Gore championed several major gun laws -- and paid a big political price for it, said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA.

"It's very important for us as Democrats to understand that where I come from guns are about a lot more than guns themselves," said Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), one of nine Democrats seeking the presidency. "They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand."

The change holds true in Congress, too. Many Democrats are playing down gun issues there, and several, including Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), are co-sponsoring a bill to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits, a top NRA priority for the 108th Congress. In the 2002 congressional races, 94 percent of NRA-endorsed candidates won.
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17706-2003Oct25.html

[Mike Irwin]

Too big to post here in its entirety, but everyone should read.

Demorats distances themselves from gun control (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17706-2003Oct25.html)


THIS, however, is a CRITICALLY important sentence, which shows that this is a political expediency, and nothing else. When they regain control, watch out...

"Indeed, the Democrats' shift away from gun control is rooted more in politics than a belief that gun laws do not help prevent crime and death, several Democrats said privately."


This one is also important, and telling...

"Some gun control advocacy groups argue that Democrats are misreading the politics, pointing to rural states with high populations of gun owners such as Michigan, which Gore won. Several candidates and strategists disagreed with that assessment, however."

[clange]

I was going to say 'what else is new?' but at least what we all have known is in print.

[w4rma]

Actually this article is talking about something very significant that is happening within the Democratic Party and I believe it is because many formerly anti-gun liberals are now switching to a more moderate view about gun regulations because of the Bush administration's totalitarianism.

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 26, 2003; Page A01

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Democratic presidential candidates are distancing themselves from tough gun control, reversing a decade of rhetoric and advocacy by the Democratic Party in favor of federal regulation of firearms.

Most Democratic White House hopefuls rarely highlight gun control in their campaigns, and none of the candidates who routinely poll near the top are calling for the licensing of new handgun owners, a central theme of then-Vice President Al Gore's winning primary campaign in 2000.

Howard Dean, the early frontrunner this year, proudly tells audiences the National Rifle Association endorsed him as governor of Vermont. As president, Dean said he would leave most gun laws to the states. The federal government, Dean said in an interview here, should not "inflict regulations" on states such as Montana and Vermont, where gun crime is not a big problem. New York and California "can have as much gun control as they want," but those states -- and not the federal government -- should make that determination, he said.

(Dean's candidacy has taken alot of Democratic insiders by surprise. I think they are following his lead on this issue.)

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, a longtime gun control advocate, is careful to highlight his support for law-abiding gun owners. The Missouri Democrat said he is not interested in giving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives more authority to investigate gun crimes, a top priority for the gun control activist. "They have enough," he said in an interview.

(Remember that Gephardt is the former House minority leader for the Democratic Party and is now a presidential candidate.)

As a result, Democratic strategists and several of the candidates themselves predict the debate over gun laws this campaign will be less divisive. Democrats might fight for narrow proposals to make guns safer and more difficult for children and criminals to obtain, they said, yet voters are likely to hear as much about enforcing existing gun laws as creating new ones -- a position Republicans and the NRA have pushed for years.

"What you are seeing . . . is a sea change" from the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton and Gore championed several major gun laws -- and paid a big political price for it, said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA.

(The vice president of the NRA agrees that this is a major shift.)

"It's very important for us as Democrats to understand that where I come from guns are about a lot more than guns themselves," said Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), one of nine Democrats seeking the presidency. "They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand."

(If Sen. Edwards doesn't win the presidential nomination, he is on the short list of every candidate for their running mate pick.)

The change holds true in Congress, too. Many Democrats are playing down gun issues there, and several, including Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), are co-sponsoring a bill to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits, a top NRA priority for the 108th Congress. In the 2002 congressional races, 94 percent of NRA-endorsed candidates won.

(And the Senate Democratic minority leader is now co-sponsoring bills that the NRA has proposed.)
…

[fallingblock]

Is another lying democ-rat:scrutiny:

[w4rma]

Read what they are saying. They aren't promising "no gun control". Noone is lying.

[JPM70535]

Frankly, I am sickened whenever I hear any candidate from the Democratic party professing to be pro gun rights. All I can think of is the old line, " How do you tell when a Democrat is lying? Answer, His lips are moveig"

the Democratic party has been dominated by anti gun liberals for so long that there is Zero chance that it will suddely reverse course and embrace RKBA. Notice that the ones making noises like a pro gun advocate tend to be willing to endorse hunting rights and littled else.

When and if I see tom Daschele, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, or Joe Biden, and their cohorts wholeheartedly endorsing RKBA for all non criminal CITIZENS, then and only then will I believe that anything has changed. Meanwhile I will continue to support what I consider to be the lesser of 2 evils, The Republican party.

[Mark Tyson]

"It's very important for us as Democrats to understand that where I come from guns are about a lot more than guns themselves," said Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), one of nine Democrats seeking the presidency. "They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand."

There you go: guns = independence. Not just self defense. Not just defense against tyranny. Gun ownership is the right of a free and independent people.

So they talk the talk ... now it's time to walk the walk, and let the AWB epire.

[fmjcafe]

It will take a lot more then words to make me believe them. I judge people by their actions.

[toro]

I still believe the Clintons run the the Democratic party. Bill Clinton didn't start to mention guns until the last year he was president. Then all of sudden all the democratic mayors and cities started to sue the gun manufacturers. I beleive the Clintons were behind all of this.

Don't forget about WACO or Ruby Ridge in the first half of his administration. Everyone blamed Janet Reno. I don't believe Janet Reno did anything on her own. She was a puppet for the Clintons. Also, we had so many law suits that the lawyers got very rich during this period. Clinton came to Cincinnati to collect money from Stan Chelsey one of those lawyers who did class action suits. He gave Clinton Millions of dollars during the time he was president.

I would be afraid to take a chance on the democrats, because of THEIR influence. IMHO

MRS. TORO


___________________________________________________
1 Chronicles 15:29
and it came to pass, as the ark of the covenant of the Lord came to the city of David that Michael the daughter of Saul looking out a window saw king David dancing and playing and she despised him in her heart.

[Old Fuff]

"fmjcafe" is right, as are most of the others who have posted on this topic. While the Democrats profess to be "moderate" and "more reasonable" on gun-rights issues they are planning to filibuster in the Senate to stop a bill that would end their politically motivated lawsuits against handgun makers, working their butt’s off trying to get the Assault Weapons Ban renewed and made worse, and are fighting tooth and nail to defeat concealed weapons licensing laws. If anyone wants to know what the Democrats’ REAL stance is ask the folks who live in Missouri. What we have been seeing lately is not a change of thinking; it’s a change in how they plan to fool the voters.

[greyhound]

because of the Bush administration's totalitarianism


From google search on "totalitarian":

For example, of the states most commonly described as totalitarian—the Soviet Union under Stalin, Nazi Germany, and the People’s Republic of China under Mao—the Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and China sought the universal fulfillment of humankind through the establishment of a classless society (see communism); German National Socialism, on the other hand, attempted to establish the superiority of the so-called Aryan race.


OK, I am not a big Bush fan, but even I won't go so far as to call him "totalitarian".

As far as the Democrats coming around on guns, I'll have to see some action rather than just words. Unfortunately, as far as the Presidency goes, that means that one of 'em would have to win first!

[greyhound]

whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand

Yes, Sen. Edwards, but do you "understand" that people also want firearms for self-defense, and that they want to be able to use them in self-defense without being treated like a criminal themselves?:banghead:

No, I don't quite think "messing with that" would be too popular in the "say anything to get elected" party.

And in fairness, the Republicans are not much better.

[XLMiguel]

From today's Washington[Com]Post
Democratic Hopefuls Play Down Gun Control
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 26, 2003; Page A01
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Democratic presidential candidates are distancing themselves from tough gun control, reversing a decade of rhetoric and advocacy by the Democratic Party in favor of federal regulation of firearms.
Most Democratic White House hopefuls rarely highlight gun control in their campaigns, and none of the candidates who routinely poll near the top is calling for the licensing of new handgun owners, a central theme of then-Vice President Al Gore's winning primary campaign in 2000.

Howard Dean, the early front-runner this year, proudly tells audiences that the National Rifle Association endorsed him as governor of Vermont. As president, Dean said he would leave most gun laws to the states. The federal government, Dean said in an interview here, should not "inflict regulations" on states such as Montana and Vermont, where gun crime is not a big problem. New York and California "can have as much gun control as they want," but those states -- and not the federal government -- should make that determination, he said.

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, a longtime gun control advocate, is careful to highlight his support for law-abiding gun owners. The Missouri Democrat said he is not interested in giving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives more authority to investigate gun crimes, a top priority for the gun control activist. "They have enough," he said in an interview.

As a result, Democratic strategists and several of the candidates
themselves predict the debate over gun laws in this campaign will be less divisive. Democrats might fight for narrow proposals to make guns safer and more difficult for children and criminals to obtain, they said, yet voters are likely to hear as much about enforcing existing gun laws as creating new ones -- a position Republicans and the NRA have pushed for years.
"What you are seeing . . . is a sea change" from the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton and Gore championed several major gun laws -- and paid a big political price for it, said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA.

"It's very important for us as Democrats to understand that where I come from guns are about a lot more than guns themselves," said Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), one of nine Democrats seeking the presidency. "They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand."

The change holds true in Congress, too. Many Democrats are playing down gun issues there, and several, including Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), are co-sponsoring a bill to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits, a top NRA priority for the 108th Congress. In the 2002 congressional races, 94 percent of NRA-endorsed candidates won.

In the presidential race, several candidates said the gun issue contributed to Gore's defeat in 2000 and could backfire on the party again next year if Democrats do not quickly lose their anti-gun image .

Indeed, the Democrats' shift away from gun control is rooted more in politics than in a belief that gun laws do not help prevent crime and death, several Democrats said privately. It started after the 1994 elections, when Democrats lost control of the House and watched such veterans as then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (Wash.) get ousted after the Democratic-controlled House passed legislation making it illegal to "manufacture, transfer or possess" 19 semiautomatic firearms. The bill, which Clinton signed into law, does not apply to the sale or possession of weapons legally held before the ban took effect.

Surveys showed that the gun issue played a huge if not decisive role in ending the Democrats' decades-long rule of the House that year. Still, many Democrats continued to target guns as a key contributor to violence and death, a belief reinforced for many by the 1999 Columbine shootings. Gore was among those leading the charge for new restrictions.

In the 2000 presidential primaries, Gore and former senator Bill Bradley (N.J.) engaged in what sounded to some like a bidding war for who would clamp down the hardest on handguns. Gore tried to distance himself from the gun issue in the waning months of his campaign against George W. Bush, but it was too late.

A key turning point in the debate over federal laws regulating guns came on election night, when Gore lost West Virginia, Arkansas and even his home state of Tennessee. Many of today's candidates blame the gun issue, in part, for Gore's defeat in those states and others. Gephardt said there's "no doubt" it "hurt" Gore.

As the candidates survey the map for 2004, they find that most competitive states are home to thousands of hunters and other gun owners -- states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Mexico. Moreover, many of the gun owners in these swing states belong to labor unions, a base of the Democratic Party. Based on NRA estimates, LaPierre said as much as three-quarters of union households in some targeted states include gun owners. Some union strategists have privately told the candidates that the only way to win in these states is to back off guns.

Some gun control advocacy groups said Democrats are misreading the politics, pointing to rural states with high populations of gun owners such as Michigan, which Gore won. Several candidates and strategists disagreed with that assessment, however.

"The gun issue is the silent killer" of Democrats, said Deborah Barron of Americans for Gun Safety, which is tutoring candidates on the gun issue. "Democrats will be extinct in red states unless" they change how gun owners view their party. "Red states" is political shorthand for states President Bush won. These red states have a significantly higher percentage of gun owners than the states Gore won in 2000, studies show.

In a new national poll, Americans for Gun Safety -- which was created by the founder of Monster.com -- found gun owners by huge margins see Democrats as the party that wants to ban guns and blame law-abiding gun owners for crime problems.

The centrist Democratic Leadership Council, which helped moderate the party's image on trade and taxes in the 1990s, is teaming with Americans for Gun Safety to try to do the same for gun control. Dean and most of his rivals have privately consulted with one or both of the groups on a new approach. Former American for Guns Safety spokesman Matt Bennett recently signed on as communications director for retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark.

The two groups do not think the candidates should run away from the issue by staying silent, which many are doing on the campaign trail. Instead, the groups are pushing a new mantra some of the candidates are adopting -- "with gun rights come responsibility."
In an interview, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), Gore's running mate in 2000, said, "People have a right to own and purchase guns . . . but it comes with responsibility."

Al From, who runs the DLC, recently said Democrats can turn the gun issue into an advantage if they vigorously push for gun safety and rigorous enforcement of laws while reassuring voters they stand firmly in support of the Second Amendment. The idea is to move away from broad restrictions such as mandatory registration and toward more popular and narrower ideas aimed at making guns safer and keeping them away from criminals and children, which polls show voters widely support.

In some ways, the shift is more rhetorical than substantive. Consider Dean.

While Dean appeals to the Democrats' liberal base, including many gun control activists, he portrays himself as the strongest defender of gun owners in the field.

Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry accused Dean of going overboard by playing to the NRA. "I don't think the Democratic Party should be the party of the NRA or walk away from our values for expedient political reasons," Kerry said.

Yet "the irony with Dean is his policy positions on guns is exactly the same as" those of his rivals, said Americans for Gun Safety policy director Jim Kessler, who surveyed the candidates' views on gun topics. "But he is making a point about his support for Second Amendment rights and vigorous enforcement. The reason? This works as a strategy."
Still, the major candidates are under constant pressure from many party activists, including major donors in the Democratic bastions of New York and California, not to retreat from the gun fight altogether.

The candidates do oppose the gun liability bill Daschle supports and favor tougher background checks on people buying firearms at gun shows (this is often referred to as "closing the gun show loophole"). Lieberman is a co-sponsor of a gun show bill.

The big test for the candidates will come as Congress begins considering whether to extend the 1994 ban on some semiautomatic weapons, which will expire next year. Some congressional Democrats want to make the law permanent and fold additional gun models and the importation of high-ammunition clips into the ban. But Bush favors a straight extension -- and that is a position many of the candidates sound willing to settle for.

"I would be happy to just extend it," Gephardt said.

--This just means they understand one of teh reasons they lost the last election. Doesn't mean for a minute that they won't get back to trying to limit 2A rights if they get in. :cuss: :fire:

[Abenaki]

New and improved crap.......is still crap!

It is the old trick of telling you, what you want to hear!

Abenaki

[Hkmp5sd]

"I don't think the Democratic Party should be the party of the NRA or walk away from our values for expedient political reasons," Kerry said.

You've gotta have values before you can walk away from them. The term Kerry is looking for is "flip-flop". The standard, time tested tactic of the democratic party to say anything, suck up to anyone and violate any election laws for expedient political reasons.

[Bill Hook]

AL GORE


Remember him? He was an "A" rated politician according to the NRA, so long as he depended upon the "peasants" in his home, pro-RKBA, state of Tennnessee. As soon as he was no longer beholden to them, he could show his true liberal colors and allegiance to the liberal wing of the "democratic" party, which is most of it.

[WAGCEVP]

"They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt.


The 2A AINT about HUNTING!

:banghead: :cuss: :fire: :what: :rolleyes: :barf:

[tyme]

Grrr...

Dean is slime. His policy of leaving gun laws to the states indicates he read some of the original Constitution, but conveniently never studied the civil war or the reconstruction amendments.

Waite court shenanigans notwithstanding, it boggles my mind how anyone can look at something saying "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," and somehow conclude that it's okay for States to make laws restricting firearm ownership or carry.

Then there's Kerry. "I don't think the Democratic Party should be the party of the NRA or walk away from our values for expedient political reasons." Good for you, bozo. Unfortunately that's never stopped Democratic candidates from taking expedient politically-motivated positions before.

And Gephardt? "[BATF] have enough [authority]." Enough authority to turn the U.S. into a police state, surely. I'm not sure what else they have authority to do. They certainly have no authority if judged by the Constitution.

"Totalitarian," "communist," "socialist," "fascist," "statist," ... so many words so misused and abused, nobody knows what they mean anymore, if they ever even had distinct meanings.

[Monkeyleg]

>>"The gun issue is the silent killer" of Democrats, said Deborah Barron of Americans for Gun Safety, which is tutoring candidates on the gun issue.<<

Funny, I've never seen a dictionary definition of "tutoring" that included "teaching to lie."

[jdege]

Democrats might fight for narrow proposals to make guns safer and more difficult for children and criminals to obtain

Bxxx-Fxxxing-Sxxx!

They'll work to make gun ownership and use more expensive and more burdensome, for the sole purpose of convincing people not to own guns.

[Moparmike]

Instead, the groups are pushing a new mantra some of the candidates are adopting -- "with gun rights come responsibility." Well duh.:rolleyes: :banghead:

Democrats might fight for narrow proposals to make guns safer and more difficult for children and criminals to obtain...Umm, children cant obtain firearms without the owner of the firearm handing it to them, or negligently leaving it out. Laws will not stop either from happening. Morons.

Eventually, it will get to the point that ownership is banned for all but LEO/.gov "for the children.":scrutiny: :banghead: :fire:

[makarov1]

John Edwards misses the point entirely. If he's ever read the 2nd, he would know that it is NOT about hunting!!!!!!!!!

What a bunch of liars. The NRA (we'll soon see how much they are worth in the upcoming presidential election) CANNOT allow the Democrats to back hunters and totally screw the 2nd ammendment. Since the democratic base is so liberal, they will never support a truly pro gun presidential candidate. This talk of supporting hunters is pure hogwash, and ad campaigns need to expose the lying politicians that "support" hunters and have anti-freedom voting records.

THESE DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS THAT SUPPORT HUNTERS ARE THE DEVIL, AND THEY SHOULD BE PORTRAYED AS SUCH! Any time the NRA deals with the devil, criminals continue to swim in guns and the law-abiding citizens of this great nation get the short end of the stick.

[gun-fucious]

It started after the 1994 elections, when Democrats lost control of the House and watched such veterans as then-Speaker Thomas S. Foley (Wash.) get ousted after the Democratic-controlled House passed legislation making it illegal to "manufacture, transfer or possess" 19 semiautomatic firearms. The bill, which Clinton signed into law, does not apply to the sale or possession of weapons legally held before the ban took effect.

Surveys showed that the gun issue played a huge if not decisive role in ending the Democrats' decades-long rule of the House that year.

worth repeating in every letter written in support of the end of AWBs

[Moparmike]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=46701

Merger time. Will the stock price rise if I buy before the merger?:D :rolleyes:

[Standing Wolf]

Yeah, and it's going to rain nickels tonight, too.

[Standing Wolf]

I'll trust a representative of the Democratic (sic) party to respect the Second Amendment the year after it snows in Dallas on Independence Day.

[greyhound]

THESE DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS THAT SUPPORT HUNTERS ARE THE DEVIL

Lets see what happens in a high profile case where a burglar gets popped with a bolt-action .30-06 "hunting" rifle.

Wonder what the leftists will say about about "hunting rifles" then- its Ok to own them for hunting, but not to use them in self-defense?

Guess the next step is we have to leave them at the hunting club....

Sound familiar (maybe with a different accent, perhaps)?

[XLMiguel]

Moderators-
Mr. Irwin was clearly up earlier than I was, please merge these threads. Just another example of gutless reportage by the Wash Post.
Thx, M2

[Moparmike]

Ay, mate. It does at that.:)

:( :(

[Langenator]

Found a great matching set of quotes, courtesy of Mus over at 1911forum.com:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State" -- Heinrich Himmler

"People who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them." -- Wesley Clark

[Moparmike]

That is scary stuff. I hadnt fully realized the similarities of the two movements until now.:scrutiny: :uhoh: :what:

[ReadyontheRight]

As stated by Nancy Pelosi, the only objective of the Democrat party is to regain and keep power. They will say whatever they can to do so.:barf:

[Preacherman]

"The gun issue is the silent killer" of Democrats, said Deborah Barron of Americans for Gun Safety, which is tutoring candidates on the gun issue.Funny, I thought guns were anything but silent... :D

[boltaction]

Spread the word NOW folks, to all your gun buddies far and wide. The Dems will talk up THEIR version of Second Amendment rights:

You will be licensed, your guns will be registered, your handguns will be "smart" and all guns will be "well regulated" by the consumer products safety commission.

Guns that are too small, too inexpensive, too large, too military, and too "whatever the Democrats say" will be the made harder to obtain in some way. The gun may be safe, but your ammo will be taxed out the waZOO!

Please note that they want to coop the safety issue. They have already started to say things like "people who are trained (read: by the NRA) tend to keep their guns unlocked (read: accessible to kids and criminals) more than others". We must maintain the high ground here.

Also, I suggest that we begin to use the phrase "Family Protection". I tell people I am a "Family Protection/Human Rights" activist. Then I launch into the firearms activism. It really makes 'em think.

If we all spead the word that the "Dems are and WILL ALWAYS BE *ANTIS in gun clothing" by mouth and by email to ten other gun owners, and ask them to do the same, we can nip this pernicious canker on our country in the bud.

Otherwise, ALL your rifles may be:
Boltaction

[Bill Hook]

Read what they are saying. They aren't promising "no gun control". Noone is lying.


w4rma,

Are you a troll? I've seen several posters here who lean to the left, but very few (ok, no one) list the "democratic" underground as their homepage in their profile.

[Bill Hook]

Otherwise, ALL your rifles may be: bolt action

Correction,

Otherwise, ALL your rifles may be:
MUZZLELOADERS

;)

[boltaction]

hey Bill, I was trying to be optimistic! I would hate to have to change my name to flintlock or something...

Boltaction

[twoblink]

I know quite a few people who's got their marshmellows and weinerdogs on skewers, ready and waiting to watch the AWB sunset..

They always talk to the talk, but you know they are lying.. Why? Because their mouth is moving..

[Langenator]

Democrats might fight for narrow proposals to make guns safer

Hmmm...last I checked, the most important safety feature on any firearm was a well trained, competent, safety conscious user who always keeps the 4 Fundatmentals in mind. Does this mean the Dems will be advocating shooting lessons for everyone?

gun owners by huge margins see Democrats as the party that wants to ban guns and blame law-abiding gun owners for crime problems.

There's a reason for this. See Feinstein, Dianne; Kennedy, Edward; Schumer, Charles; Lautenberg, Frank; Pelosi, Nancy. Most of the Dems' senior leadership in Congress comes from states that are extremely liberal, places that would relfexively elect a Democrat even if none ran.

Still, the major candidates are under constant pressure from many party activists, including major donors in the Democratic bastions of New York and California, not to retreat from the gun fight altogether.

See above. California and NY have so many votes (especially electoral votes) that the Dems can't win without them, so the two most anti-gun states in the country set a big chunk of the Dem agenda.

[SDC]

Sure, sure.... :rolleyes: And if you like that one, here's another good one for you; "I never had sexual relations with that Lewinski woman".

[DonP]

The general concensus is how "pro-gun" do we have to look to win votes.

On the other hand, down in the "Gun Dungeon" at DU there is no respite from demands for more registration, assault weapons bans and other "reasonable" restrictions. The NRA is villified as a totally Republican, racist, homophobic etc. and always treated as if they represent every gun owner in America.

I guess their hope is that; "Maybe if we just don't talk about it people will think we dropped the issue and vote for us. Then when we are back in power we can do what we know is right." I bet the Brady's won't be spokespersons at the Dem convention though.

I see no real change in the party or its approach to the second amendment, other than a call by many Dems for hardening its gun control platform plank. They still don't take the millions of gun owning American's seriously as a political force. Their focus and major point of reference remains Sara Brady and Tom Diaz as the source of all gun related information.

I just keep wondering how long they will keep blaming the media, crooked voting machines, political pressure, the Bush family secret cabal etc for their ongoing losses at the ballot box. Sooner or later, probably after McAuliffe and the Clinton's have left power, they have to see that there are fundamental issues for the majority of American's that they are way off base on, the 2nd amendment is the most visible to us, but there are others as well.

Don P.

[w4rma]

Of COURSE there are folks in the "gun dungeon" at DU calling for those things, *but* you'll notice that there are folks in the "gun dungeon" calling for the exact opposite also and most other folks are in between these two extremes, just like most Americans.

For a sample, here is one of many threads in that forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18073
Notice the wide disparity in the responses.

Also, note that Sara Brady is a Republican (and she is still a Republican), not a Democrat.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part4/sarah.html

[longeyes]

Don't trust 'em.

They don't trust us, we shouldn't trust them.

[DonP]

There are always a number of pro-folks there, but a small fraction of the posts are pro second it seems. I've been pleasantly surprised to find a few here and there.

Pro second people get tombstoned all the time and Benchley and company keep referring to pro-people as all "Lying a-- wipe, racist scum" and a range of other charming ad hominem personal attacks and gets away with it. I guess because he contributes to DU, enough at least so that they won't drop him no matter what kind of hate, vitriol and cooked statistics he spews.

By the definitions of a lot of the anti folks over there, if you own a gun (or even belong to this forum) and don't believe in full registration, the assault weapons ban etc. you are a lying thieving repuglican. Sad but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of tolerance for opposing points of view.

My point was exactly that Sara Brady and company are indeed Republicans, but the leadership doesn't seem to want to tone down their gun control rhetoric and keep using them as their sole point of reference on all gun related matters.

That would be like the Republicans going to NOW for their point of view on pro-life issues. I don't get it, but it is fun to observe.

BTW, based on your sig line, Man it seems there is a lot of anti Dean rhetoric over there too! Is it because he has a big lead in funds and at the polls?

Don P.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let's take a look at who the Dems have on the Judiciary committee in the House and Senate right now:

Conyers (http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/07/clinton.guns.03/)(Senior Dem)

Jackson-Lee (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/26/gun.control/)

Biden (http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Joe_Biden_Gun_Control.htm)

Leahy (http://reason.com/0203/co.sm.gun.shtml)

Of course, we hardly need to elaborate on the noted accomplishments of

Kennedy

Schumer

Feinstein

These are the people the Democrats choose to head the committees that write gun laws in the United States.

Howard Dean can talk until he is blue in the face; but as long as these guys are the ones writing the laws, his vaguely moderate position doesn't do us much good.

[w4rma]

My view on why enough Americans, to keep the powers that be on their toes, should stay armed:

I think that Americans need to stay armed in part to keep **ANY** conglomeration of power, either the government or an overseas/domestic economic (or otherwise) power, that would take control over the United States government and therefore our armed forces. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not want to see an American aristocracy created. America's founding fathers rebelled, and many patriots paid for our freedom with their lives, against the English aristocracy. We don't need a new one.

I think too many folks think that the government is the only power with the potential for oppression. They are darn correct that the government has the potential for oppression, but to say that a government is the only power with that potential is incorrect.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

There are *many* progressives who are pro-gun.


On my use of the word, "totalitarian":

Lawyers Furious as US Builds (Gitmo) Death Chambers

LAWYERS expressed outrage yesterday at plans to put al-Qaeda suspects, including two Britons and an Australian, on military trial in Guantanamo Bay.

They would effectively be tried by a “kangaroo court”, stripped of all basic rights of due process that would be afforded in criminal courts in Britain or America, they said.
…
He said: “The construction of execution chambers makes virtually every lawyer in the Western world extremely angry. The idea that there is an artificial creation or enclave which, according to the Americans, is beyond the purview of all recognised systems of law is repugnant.”
…
The Times/UK (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0705-05.htm)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=8201&forum=DCForumID71

The Courier Mail: US Plans Death Camp (May 26, 2003)
THE US has floated plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp, with its own death row and execution chamber.

Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported yesterday.

The plans were revealed by Major-General Geoffrey Miller, who is in charge of 680 suspects from 43 countries, including two Australians.
…
“This camp was created to execute people. The administration has no interest in long-term prison sentences for people it regards as hard-core terrorists.”
…
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6494000%255E401,00.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3258&forum=DCForumID71

CBS Producer Fired For Comparing The Mood In America To That Of Germans Who Helped Hitler's Rise To Power
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2845.htm

Producer Is a Casualty in CBS's 'Hitler' Miniseries
…
In the April 12 TV Guide, the publication says that “Gernon stated his belief that fear fueled both the Bush administration's adoption of a preemptive-strike policy and the public's acceptance of it.” According to the article, “Gernon said a similar fearfulness in a devastated post-World War I Germany was 'absolutely' behind that nation's acceptance of Hitler's extremism.”

Gernon is quoted as saying of the miniseries, which tracks Hitler's rise to power in 1930s Germany: “It basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole world into war.

“I can't think of a better time to examine this history than now,” he added.

The article further quotes him as saying that “when an entire country becomes afraid for their sovereignty, for their safety, they will embrace ideas and strategies and positions that they might not embrace otherwise.”
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5649-2003Apr10

The USA PATRIOT Act (http://www.eff.org/issues/usapa/)

[w4rma]

Passionate disagreements sometimes lead to over the top words. Folks from both extremes toss bombs, this definitely isn't limited to either side, not on DU and not here and not elsewhere, either.

Yes, there is alot of anti-Dean rhetoric on DU. It's the primary season and Democrats are battling over who will represent the Party as the presidential nominee. The other campaigns were caught off guard by Dean's outsider/Jimmy Carter-like surge to the lead. They have gone on the attack (http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001964.html#more) and so have their supporters.

Gov. Dean is indeed the current front-runner for the nomination. He is doing the best in the most early primary states. Dean is leading or is tied in the national polls, now. Dean demolished the previous Democratic fundraising record for a single quarter set by Clinton/Gore in 1996 and he did it with tens of thousands of small donors who aren't going to ask for backroom favors. Dean is also leading by helping to set the Democratic Party agenda (the article starting this thread is a good example of this).

[Mark Tyson]

I am so sick of the Democrats pushing these bans and bills and useless, idiotic gun control schemes. I've been writing them (DNC, DLC etc.) and writing them telling them to drop gun control. My last letter, I told them that if they don't let the AWB expire I'm never coming back to the party(I'm still registered Democrat but not card carrying party member). After reading the recent news, I like to imagine that my letters have made a difference . . . but I'm looking for action, not words. They need to let the ban die a quiet, long overdue death and never think about extending any provision of it, and furthermore they need to stop pushing registration schemes, bullet "fingerprinting", and all the other inane nonsense. They need to end it all, now. We shall see what they do.

The hysterical reaction to Dean's quite tepid views on guns shows just how far the party has gone from JFK's day. I'm voting for Dean in the primary since he's the least anti gun of any of the Democrats. As for the general election ... who knows.

Time to walk the walk, boys. You stay the hell away from my rights and my heritage.

[greyhound]

Can't prove this, but judging by the avatar its possible that the person in the DU thread referenced here defending 2A is a regular over at "Glock Talk". There is someone over there with the same avatar. Could be wrong of course.

[greyhound]

The Courier Mail: US Plans Death Camp (May 26, 2003)

Good grief. I guess Dean will try to close Bush's "death camps" so we should all vote for Dean.:barf:

And I repeat, I am not a Bush fan or a Republican when I say that.

Good Lord, I know some of the tin foilers accused Clinton of having Vince Foster murdered, but "Death Camps" were even beyond the pale there....

[w4rma]

Bush and many countries who have citizens locked up in Bush's Guantanamo Bay prison facility have been fighting over whether or not Bush will be allowed to kill them, after a trial by 3 secret judges. It's been all over the news (http://www.google.com/search?q=Bush+Blair+%22military+tribunal%22+%22Guantanamo+Bay%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&output=search) in Britain where Blair has been trying to get some British citizens extridited back to Britain away from what they feel will not be a fair trial.

There is lots more information on this that is more recent. It's not a theory, conspiracy or not, it's prety simple and factual:

Bush has instituted a so-called "military tribunal" to keep these cases out of our court system. It's both unprecendented and unconstitutional. It is a slippery slope.

[LawDog]

Multiple threads merged.

LawDog

[Bill Hook]

The other campaigns were caught off guard by Dean's outsider/Jimmy Carter-like surge to the lead.


Methinks this isn't the only thing Jimmy Carter-like about him. :D

[Moparmike]

I got about 10 posts thru that DU thread and my head hurts something awful. That UK guy w/ the Homer avitar needs a serious education. As I type this, I must refrain from typing dirty things about him and his ignorance of the real world.:banghead: :cuss: :scrutiny: :rolleyes:

[PATH]

Democrat party is pretty awful on RKBA. Beware of Republicans like Pataki, Guiliani, and AHNOHLD of Caleeeforneea! All anti-gunners!

[Don Galt]

%22 of the republicans in congress voted for the AWB.

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1994&rollnumber=156

yet, %30 of congressional democrats voted against it.

We should judge people by their positions, not by their party. %22 of the Republicans don't deserve your support on this issue, and %30 of the Democrats DO. (or did at that time.)