Dems recast Gun Control image

Status
Not open for further replies.

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
Please note, about halfway through the article, that the Dems start talking a bout "hunters" and "hunting."

Notice how they argue that the "assault weapons ban" was a good idea, and wasn't going to take away anybody's "hunting" guns.


It's the same old crap.




http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/17/democrats_recast_gun_control_image/


Democrats recast gun control image
Party eyes inroads in the West
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff | December 17, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic Party, long identified with gun control, is rethinking its approach to the gun debate, seeking to improve the chances of its candidates in Western states where hunters have been wary of casting votes for a party with a national reputation of being against guns.

The Democrats' effort to soften their rhetoric on gun control is similar to the party's recent efforts to recast its message on abortion, maintaining their support of abortion rights but welcoming more Democrats who favor restrictions on the procedure.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, who had been a critic of some forms of gun control during his tenure as governor of Vermont, has urged candidates to view gun control laws as state issues, allowing those in rural states to reflect the values of hunters and others hostile to gun control, while supporting restrictions in urban areas with serious crime problems.

''On gun rights, we've allowed the Republicans to paint us in a way that just doesn't represent our values," said Damien LaVera, a Dean spokesman, noting that Republicans have repeatedly portrayed Democrats as hostile to the Western way of life.

''It's all about not letting the Republicans define our values," LaVera said.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful arm of the gun lobby, has noticed the shift in positions of Democratic candidates. The percentage of money donated by the NRA to Democratic House and Senate candidates has more than doubled, from 6 percent in the 2002 election cycle to 14 percent so far in the 2006 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, said the group has ''seen a marked change" in Democratic behavior.

''Certainly, we support more Republicans than Democrats, but we've seen in the last few years an increasing number of Democrats actively seeking the NRA endorsement and actually winning it," Arulanandam said.

Even before Democrats began recasting their positions, gun control was in trouble on Capitol Hill. The assault-weapons ban passed during the Clinton administration, barring 19 styles of weapons, expired in September 2004 and Congress did not renew it.

Meanwhile, gun control advocates in Congress have been trying unsuccessfully to close the so-called ''gun show loophole," which allows unlicensed sellers to peddle their weapons at gun shows without having to perform background checks on buyers.

Democratic Party officials say they expect their candidates to have a wide range of opinions on gun control, and insist that the national party's message of ''responsible gun ownership" is not hostile to law-abiding gun owners. But some Democrats from rural states say the party still needs to do more to be inclusive and sympathetic to gun owners.

Candidates opposing gun control ''are depicted by some in our party as a bunch of yahoos, and we're not," said Paul Hackett, a Democratic Senate candidate from Ohio and a member of the National Rifle Association. ''We are just good Democrats who are pro-gun.

Page 2 of 2 --''As a party, our lack of understanding of gun sports is hurting us," said Hackett, a former Marine who owns about 20 guns.

Democrats' ability to attract rural voters in the West is a key to their hopes in 2006. In Montana, where Democrats hope to pick up a US Senate seat next year, candidates must be pro-gun to have a chance at winning, said the state's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, an avid hunter who has ''more guns than I need but not as many as I want."

''I guess I kind of believe in gun control: You control your gun, and I'll control mine," Schweitzer said.

Democrats have made some headway in elections in the Mountain West, Schweitzer noted, winning majorities in both houses of the Colorado Legislature and picking up the Montana governorship last year for the first time since 1988. But national Democrats need to understand that their Western members have a different view of guns than those who live in areas where ''teenagers are wearing their caps backward, wearing baggy pants, and are shooting at each other," said Schweitzer.

In states like Montana, with its vast expanses, where training in the use of guns is a rite of passage for children in some families, Republicans have often cited Democratic-led gun-control laws as a wedge issue between the parties.

Carl Forti, a spokesman for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, said the two parties still have a values gap on gun rights. And he said that the GOP isn't worried about losing to pro-gun rights Democrats in rural areas. ''We have had pro-gun Democrats before, and we have defeated them," Forti said.

Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said his party does not impose any kind of gun policy. The party's 2004 platform took a middle ground on gun control, pledging both to honor the Second Amendment right to bear arms and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Like Dean, Emanuel urges candidates to represent the wishes of their constituents.

''They've got to reflect their districts," Emanuel said.

But some other party leaders acknowledge that as a group, Democrats still have an anti-gun image that could hinder even those candidates who oppose gun control. Some of the party's most prominent members -- including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California -- support gun control, a more common view among lawmakers from urban areas.

Kathy Sullivan, chairwoman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said: ''I think there are people here in New Hampshire who do think of Democrats as a party that wants to take guns away from responsible gun owners. It's important for candidates up here to stress, no, that's not what we want to do."

Some gun control supporters question Dean's stance that gun control should be a regional matter. Such an approach is not workable because people can buy guns legally in one state and use them to commit crimes in others, said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

But Hamm also acknowledged that gun control supporters have done a poor job framing their arguments in ways that do not make lawful hunters fear their lifestyle is under attack, Hamm said.

''Folks say, 'You're using that [assault weapons ban] as a secret message to try to get to our hunting rifles,' " he said. ''It's a shame they believe that, but we haven't done a good job countering that."

Democratic candidates in Western and Southwestern states say the gun control issue has become important because many rural voters, including many hunters, have grown more sympathetic to Democrats' support for environmental initiatives.

Hunters are as concerned about having a place to hunt as much as they are worried about keeping their guns, said Tony Massaro, senior vice president of the League of Conservation Voters.

''Politicians in the West need to be able to run in rural areas, in addition to urban and suburban regions," he said. ''In order to do this, they need to protect habitat and not be seen as wanting to take away the ability to hunt."

© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.
 
This statement is hanging out there by itself in the middle of the article.
Meanwhile, gun control advocates in Congress have been trying unsuccessfully to close the so-called ''gun show loophole," which allows unlicensed sellers to peddle their weapons at gun shows without having to perform background checks on buyers.
Ok. I'll ask one more time ... What "gun show loophole"? I don't understand. This keeps on coming up, but noboy has yet to explain what is different about a gun show (other than the cost of hot dogs) and any other day of the week?
-
 
Yeah and I'll vote for a demorat as soon as they write me a check for the $8000 they bilked me out of for my registered FNC and post-ban guns during the AWB.

It's personal now.
 
It is my understanding, and I would appreciate it if an informed person would supply the correct history if I am wrong, that this whole "hunting" as the reason to own firearms, which has then affected gun laws ever since ("sporting uses") came about because of the National Firearms Act of 1934, legislation that the NRA (again my understanding) backed.

Who can supply the real history of this concept? To be able to deal with the "sporting" issue, we've got to have history and context.
 
I'll start to believe the Democrats have had a change of heart on gun control just as soon as I see Howard Dean calling for a repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
 
The 'sporting' clause came from the Gun Control Act of 1968. Not the NFA. In fact NFA weapons are exempt from the 'sporting purpose' bs because of their obvious non-sporting nature.

If you build a SBR out of an AK-47 receiver you don't have to follow the foreign parts count requirement any more because the weapon is no longer 'sporting'. There is an ATF letter on the matter available on the 'net.
 
But Hamm also acknowledged that gun control supporters have done a poor job framing their arguments in ways that do not make lawful hunters fear their lifestyle is under attack, Hamm said.

''Folks say, 'You're using that [assault weapons ban] as a secret message to try to get to our hunting rifles,' " he said. ''It's a shame they believe that, but we haven't done a good job countering that."

Probably because there is no logical argument to support your side Mr. Hamm.
Fortunately people outside of the Brady bunch still possess logical minds.
 
"has urged candidates to view gun control laws as state issues"

"gun control advocates in Congress have been trying unsuccessfully to close the so-called ''gun show loophole,"


Wee bit contradictory here :scrutiny:
 
I havn't decided if the politicians (of either party) who equate 2A with hunting really believe it, or if they know better and are trying to brainwash the public, and avoid the real uncomfortable, icky reason for RKBA.

In the coming election cycle,we need to meet with candidates and attend their town meetings. Ask them what they think the purpose of the second amendment is. If they mention hunting, set them straight-in front of everyone. They may mention self defense against crime, and while this is a great benefit of the 2A, it's still not the original purpose.

BTW, we could elect pro gun dems till the cows come home. That party is run by the hard left, and with the likes of Kennedy, Shumer, Clinton, Kerry, and so on running things, it's a waste of time. Even a pro gun dem president would be under the thumb of his party.
 
The Gun Show Loophole

Janitor said:
This statement is hanging out there by itself in the middle of the article.

Ok. I'll ask one more time ... What "gun show loophole"? I don't understand. This keeps on coming up, but noboy has yet to explain what is different about a gun show (other than the cost of hot dogs) and any other day of the week?
-

I think the 'gun show loophole" means that they want to ban private sales of firearms. For instance, you can't transfer/sell your 'scattergun to your kid unless you first become a licensed dealer. They want all sales to go through licensed dealers only, where they record every serial number and enter this into some Fed database. "Gun Show Loophole" is somewhat of a misnomer. But then again, every anti term is a misnomer.
 
Or course the Dems say they won't go after hunting weapons. After all, the NRA says they want to protect our right to have weapons for hunting, so the Dems really WON'T go after them.

If the NRA supported our RKBA for personal defense instead, then maybe the Dems would act differently? Who knows. Neither party is worth a spit anyways.

Tom
 
Lone_Gunman wrote:

"I am glad to see the Democrats have adopted this policy.

Its the same as President Bush isn't it?"


Yes, Lone_Guman, you are 100% correct.

The Dems and Dubya Bush agree completely and totally.

That is, of course, why you saw Bush push so hard in Congress to keep the AWB from sunsetting.

That is why Duby has spent the last year railing against the sunset of the AWB, and yelling at Congress to push another version of the AWB back through.

That's why Dubya has been threatening to veto every single bit of legislation that makes it to his desk that doesn't have the AWB attached to it as a rider.

Yes, Lone-Gunman, you are 100%. Dubya Bush is a hardcore proponent of the AWB.....which is exactly why the thing sunset a year ago, and nary a peep about it has come from the White House since.

:rolleyes:

hillbilly
 
lance22 said:
I think the 'gun show loophole" means that they want to ban private sales of firearms. For instance, you can't transfer/sell your 'scattergun to your kid unless you first become a licensed dealer. They want all sales to go through licensed dealers only, where they record every serial number and enter this into some Fed database. "Gun Show Loophole" is somewhat of a misnomer. But then again, every anti term is a misnomer.

They also portray gun shows as places where any average criminal can walk in with a ten-spot and walk out with a "barely legal high power assault weapon" and be ready to commit all forms of mayhem.

They seem to not notice (or more likely, care) that gun shows are mostly stocked with dealers who have to do the usual checks anyway.
 
Yes, Lone-Gunman, you are 100%. Dubya Bush is a hardcore proponent of the AWB.....which is exactly why the thing sunset a year ago, and nary a peep about it has come from the White House since.

A little touchy are we?

If by some twist of fate the Democrats were to take control of Congress (which won't happen thank goodness) and send Bush a new AWB, he has said he would sign it.

Now, does this mean he is a liar, or is he really in favor of the AWB?

There is no need to get all fussy with me about this. I am only repeating what Bush has said. Why do Bush-lovers get mad when I simply point out what he has said he would do?
 
Last edited:
They never seem to mention the 2-3 cops sitting at the table at the entrance eyeballing everyone that comes in and the other cops in uniform and plain clothes milling about in the aisles.

Plus the undercover Agent Smucktelli's running around asking for under the table machinegun deals.

Nope there's no law enforcement going on at gun shows. :rolleyes:

If you're a gangbanger with 1000 gang tattoos and a fresh arrest warrant going to a place full of cops and ex-cops probably isn't the smartest idea. Of course liberals aren't known for logic or verifying their so-called facts.
 
The Democrats in general are only trying to put on a different set of clothes, but inside, the more powerful Democrats (leaders) support stengthening gun control laws. Some would want to total ban on ownership of all firearms. You can cover up body odor with perfumes, but you still STINK when you get up close. Not many Republicans feel this way. The strongest Republican that I can recall now is probably McCain who most likely supports additional forms of gun control. He is pretty liberal in his views overall. Liberal does not necessarily mean you want gun control, but the overall political leaning certainly allows for strengthening gun control measures which affect the common citizen either by increased cost or eventual registration.

Watch Hillary continue to moderate her stance on gun control during the campaign. If she wins, that all goes out the window. In that sense, she is just like her husband, say anything just to WIN. But, she is still the same person underneath the perfume.

If Democrats in general truly don't believe that additional gun legislation such as closing the so called loophole mentioned above, vote these gun control turkeys out of office and get some new blood in there. Maybe the new blood may actually be believed.

In PA which is where I grew up, PA does not allow the transfer of handguns between private parties without the transfer going though a FFL, hence NICs check. I disagree with this. Glad I don't live there anymore. You PA folks need to get this law changed.
 
I don't believe President Bush ever spoke or wrote about the AWB, but did use his people to speak for him.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/bush.gunban/

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the president's position "is clear."

"The president said in the 2000 campaign that he supported the assault weapons ban because he thought it was reasonable," Fleischer said. "He stated then that he would support the reauthorization of it, and he states that again today."

But Bush's position has been relayed only through remarks by his press secretary and other spokesmen, and through communications between White House aides and congressional committees and interest groups.

The president has not mentioned it in public and has not issued written statements in his name.
 
Sorry to break it to you Silver, but the NRA stoped crring about RKBA a long time ago. Nowa-days they are more interested in how much money they can squeeze out of their members.

This is why i cant join most of the ranges in our area. They usualy require members to join the NRA. I WONT have my money squandered by a bunch of corporate executives.

Do a little research into how the NRA spends their members money.
 
I guess the NRA got all the concealed carry laws and now the laws putting self defense in public without retreating on the books for hunting? Yeah sure, Whatever.
 
the NRA stoped crring about RKBA a long time ago.
What are you talking about ?

When the NRA stopped the gun industry protection act after the Dems added a poison-pill AWB renewal, that wasn’t about hunting.

When the NRA sued to get the New Orleans residents gun rights restored, that wasn’t about hunting.
 
A wise old man once told me

Believe what they do, not what they say.

When Democrats start acting like the believe in the Second Amendment (voting for a repeal of the 68 CGA would be a nice indicator), then I'll start believing them.

And when Republicans start acting like the believe in the Second Amendment (voting for a repeal of the 68 CGA would be a nice indicator), then I'll start believing them, too. :evil:
 
I love this kind of stuff. The Democrats have so many party members trying to pull the party in different directions that it's just gotten sad. Nearly every issue (with the exception of some of the really extreme ones) has some of mixed message out there from the dems. They want Southern and Western votes, so they send messages out there, then, the next day, Bill Clinton and Dianne Feinstein are out there campaigning for the party. :what:

Do they think people are just stupid? That a couple of insignificant, half-hearted speeches will overturn the consistent actions to the contrary by major party leaders?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top