Does Anyone Think Dem's Have Forsaken Gun Control?

[USAFNoDAk]

Here's a link and an excerpt where the Democrats let it slip that they are not to be gun friendly in 2006, in case anyone had any ideas that they have changed their stripes on guns.

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_March_14_2006_Memo.pdf


1. White rural voters (19 percent of electorate). These voters have already pulled back
strongly from Republicans since 2004, but there is still room for Democratic growth
here. White rural voters make up nearly a quarter of both undecideds and Democratic
winnable voters, and even after their shift, their desire for change still far exceeds
their support for the party. These voters are just as frustrated with the direction of the
country as voters overall, and the percentage supporting Democrats trails the
percentage who reject Bush’s policy direction by a 8-point margin.
When it comes to Iraq, these voters no longer believe that the war was worth the cost,
but continue to reject the idea of reducing troop levels, opposing it by an 11-point
margin. Their conservative stances on issues such as abortion and guns do pose
obstacles to Democrats, but these should be more than offset by their receptiveness to
initiatives that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and their support for replacing
the current prescription drug plan with a new, simpler one.

"Their conservative stances on issues such as abortion and guns do pose obstacles to Democrats....."

Enuff said.

 

[ArmedBear]

Does it ever occur to the Democrats to just try to represent people and their priorities, rather than trying to trick people into voting for someone whom they really DON'T want to vote for?

"Desire for change?"

That means that their message and their platform are still limited to Bush-bashing.

Most Americans are smart enough to figure out that they are voting for the person who best represents them, no matter how imperfect. Are rural voters REALLY going to vote Democrat all of a sudden, just because they would rather see a reincarnation of Ronald Reagan than GW Bush?

Furthermore, they're voting for local and state representatives. Most dissatisfied conservative voters won't try to punish Bush for not being conservative enough, by voting for an avowed leftie -- which describes WAY too many Democrat politicians at the moment.

What, exactly, is there in it for the Democrats to push for more gun laws? Why not just leave it alone? It needn't be an issue at all. Most people -- except for a 2A advocates and some hard-core antis -- don't give guns much thought, compared to other issues. The hard-core antis are not a demographic that the Democrats will lose. For whom would they vote, anyway?

As far as abortion, neither extreme side of this issue has the support of the American majority. Most people polled want early-term abortion available legally, and late-term abortion subject to restriction. I.e., they disagree with hard-core pro-life as well as hard-core pro-choice activists. Again, most people don't give it much thought unless there's a threat of an all-out ban.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

No wonder the Democrats are confused, look at what Carville is recommending... on the one hand he advocates expansion of the prescription drug plan and Medicare benefits as keys to winning several groups and on the other he tells Democrats to highlight the cost of the Republican prescription drug plan to target fiscal conservatives.

I don't think that strategy is going to play very well...

As for do I think the Democrats have changed their policy on gun control, the answer is NO; but I keep hoping to see some action from the Dems to go with those words.

 

[Sam Adams]

Does Anyone Think Dem's Have Forgone Gun Control?

No.

Which is why we should not only work to be sure that they don't regain control of Congress or White House, and to put pressure on the Pubbies to be pro-gun. In my world, the mere expiration of the AWB is insufficient evidence of the latter - all they had to do was nothing. Where's the pro-gun legislation: the killing of the '86 machine gun ban, the national CCW recognition act, the elimination of "sporting use" as a criteria for regulating guns and ammo, the removal of import bans?

Still, even with the failure of the Pubbies to be outright pro-gun, at least they're not for banning guns and making criminals of those of us who want to keep them.

BTW, the possibility of the Dems coming back into power should cause all of us to buy more guns, and to stockpile ammo, components (for us reloaders) magazines and other accessories. The graboids will be back someday, and it is best to be prepared.

 

[shermacman]

It is very hard to be a Democrat and be Pro 2nd Amendment. The contradictions would make a thinking person's brain explode.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

No, they might not beat the drum for a while. However, it is a base issue with them and I'm sure they will come back to it once they are in power again.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Does it ever occur to the Democrats to just try to represent people and their priorities, rather than trying to trick people into voting for someone whom they really DON'T want to vote for?

Neither the Democans nor the Republicrats have any interest in honestly representing anyone but themselves.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Standing Wolf is correct.

If you really think the Republicans are pro-2nd Amendment, you are asleep at the wheel. There has been no roll-back of anti-gun legislation since Bush has taken office. The only thing Republicans have done on a federal level has been to pass lawsuit protection for gun-makers.

With the stroke of a pen, Bush could undo 20 years worth of bad presidential executive orders regarding the 2nd Amendment, but I haven't seen him do anything except say he would sign a new AWB if sent to him.

 

[Manedwolf]

If you really think the Republicans are pro-2nd Amendment, you are asleep at the wheel. There has been no roll-back of anti-gun legislation since Bush has taken office. The only thing Republicans have done on a federal level has been to pass lawsuit protection for gun-makers.

With the stroke of a pen, Bush could undo 20 years worth of bad presidential executive orders regarding the 2nd Amendment, but I haven't seen him do anything except say he would sign a new AWB if sent to him.

In my opinion, the only reason why they haven't declared that "only terrahists need guns" is that it'd be political suicide at this point.

They want to curtain all other civil liberties with the excuse of thumbsucking false security, and an armed populace is a bad thing when you're trying to consolidate power under a unitary executive, and don't care what the people think of you.

Just look at what happened in 1776, after all!

 

[Maxwell]

Republicans arnt moving to un-ban anything because its not a big win issue, EXCEPT when the dem's go to ban stuff. They win by default for simply not doing anything.

I doubt that the Democrats have forgotten about gun control. Its on their list, just that theres so many other issues to deal with now.
I dont think they've seen this as costing them votes. Most likely they figure the promised drop in crime levels from eliminating all guns is supposed to win them far more than would be lost to a few hunters or collectors.

Once that illusion breaks and they figure out being pro-gun can win votes AND deter crime (thus winning more votes in the long run), I suspect that will change views party wide.

 

[bogie]

The current democratic strategy is to scream loudly that Bush is EVIL, and hope that it rubs off on all the other Democrats. On some Democrat-oriented forums, even some of the hard-left ones, bringing up gun control is a sure way to ensure silence. They just quit the converation. It's really freaky. No locks. No deletes. They just don't go there.

 

[Art Eatman]

For months, now, CArville, Dean and other Dem party-pols have been talking about what they want people to think the Democrats stand for, not what the Democrats actually stand for.

"We gotta give the appearance of believing..." is the basic deal.

But nothing's changed.

Art

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Republicans are pro-getting elected, like pretty much every other party that actually gets elected. Show either party that repealing gun laws is a winner and they will fall all over themselves to repeal gun laws. The tricky part is convincing them it is a winner and delivering on it once you do. Gun owners are a notoriously fickle political block. There are easier groups to work with if you need votes.

 

[Dmack_901]

No.

They're waiting for the next assination/school shooting/etc. It's how all the others have passed, and it's the only way anti-gun legislation ever will. It just doesn't have the public support to pass any other way. Well... in isolated(both physically and mentally) areas it does, but...

 

[hwp]

Claiming "one side is as bad as the other" or "they are no different from the other" on ANY issue only shows ignorance. This is a lazy way out for people not wanting to realize nothing is perfect and we must make decisions even though the best option is still not perfect. Throwing your hands in the air and exclaiming how everything sucks is just....kinda......stupid.

If you honestly think the Democrats are not anti gun you have been in a cave for about four decades.

I know when gun related issues are being tossed around in DC Democrats are ALWAYS anti gun and the republicans are PRO GUN. It is amazing what one can see when they open the two orbs above the nose.

Republicans are far from perfect but when it comes to gun legislation in DC they are the only people standing against the Democrats and the socialist media.

I'll wait for the pie in the sky but for now I am willing to keep my 2A rights as opposed to pissing my vote away on a Democrat or a sure loser nobody.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Each President since Reagan has been consistently worse. I don't think we have hit the bottom yet.

 

[Hollowdweller]

Actually maybe somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but I think that the majority of people polled actually support more gun laws, just the same as most people are not for outlawing abortion.

However with the electorate so evenly divided there's the fact that most people who ar pro choice and pro gun control don't vote on these issues alone, while an overwhelming majority of the anti abortion anti gun control people DO vote on these issues and therfore are the deciding factor in elections.

The Democrats are just figuring this out. I bet that next election cycle we are going to see more gun friendly Democrats like Feingold and Warner rather than a John Kerry or Al Gore.

 

[lee n. field]

Does Anyone Think Dem's Have Forsaken Gun Control?

Not for a moment. Blue zone Devilcrats will never let that one go -- they'll ride it to oblivion.

 

[beerslurpy]

According to that report, voters are unhappy with bush insofar as he has deviated from conservative values (overspending, entitlements, etc) and the Democrats think this is good for them how?

When I am dissatisfied with the republican on gun control and spending, are the Democrats really going to offer anything better? I wish they would, but wishing doesnt make it so. All the democratic candidates I have seen in a long time were even worse than the republicans that were running against them.

I predict that if the dems lose in 2006 and 2008, the left wing of the party will be purged in a most brutal manner and the Democrats will largely move to the right in an effort to regain national relevance. You will begin to see a return of the party of zell miller.

And no, the dems havent forsaken gun control anymore than semi-reformed alcoholics forsake booze. Sure, they know its bad and they wont touch it when someone is watching them, but it is only a matter of time before they think that they can indulge again and find the car keys. Watch out pedestrians.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Does Anyone Think Dem's Have Forsaken Gun Control?

NO!

With the stroke of a pen, Bush could undo 20 years worth of bad presidential executive orders regarding the 2nd Amendment, but I haven't seen him do anything except say he would sign a new AWB if sent to him.

That is not an expectation to have for a President. Presidents do not undo past Presidents EO's. It is an unwritten rule, part of their establishment. They don't trample over eachother in order to preserve the power of the office.


****


Guys, step 1 is to come to the realization that OUR situation is unworkable at the Federal level. We will not see a repeal of ANY gun control laws EVER. Not going to happen. AWB died because of a sunset provision, nothing more. If it were permanent the 1st time around, there is no way the Senate would have voted along with the House to repeal it, let alone Bush sign a repeal. Sunsets require NO action, repeals require MANY actions. Huge difference. Sunsets are easy, repeals are impossible. Yet, in our political situation, even sunsets can be a challenge.


The only way change can be made is at the State level.


What about the Federal level you say? Well, the BEST we can ever hope for on the Federal level is to DODGE anti-gun legislation. In that respect, the Bush Admin as well as the House has been the best we could hope for.


Look at the big picture. Bush has never, ever been out and about cheerleading guncontrol. The same way Bush did tours and speeches for his SS reform, Clinton did that just for gun-control!!! (priorities eh?) Just having an administration that is not hostile to the 2nd Amendment is a victory for us.


Yes, I know, this is a defeatist, or at least a non-productive attitude to hold. If you don't set higher goals, you'll never get it. While I agree with this, we must be realists and come to the conclusion that repealing the 89, 86, 68 or 34 bans is IMPOSSIBLE. Our government as a whole is too anti-gun to ever do that, regardless of party. The Republican party has openly stated(as well as the NRA) that it is satisfied with the laws "already" on the books.


Hopefully, the next President we elect will not be hostile to the 2nd Amendment. What we want to do is avoid another anti-gun cheerleader like Klinton. Even an anti-gunner like McCain (I hate him) is at least more moderate and will probably never make gun-control an agenda on the national level that he'd draw significant attention to.


Meanwhile, we need to really kick some butt in our States. That is where the cultural change begins. Think of it as a reverse trickle down. Like a trickle-UP. Change society, one small piece at a time, little by little...and eventually the sum will be more tolerant of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The Democrats are just figuring this out. I bet that next election cycle we are going to see more gun friendly Democrats like Feingold and Warner rather than a John Kerry or Al Gore.

Feingold is gun friendly? That must explain why he voted YES on Kennedy's ammo ban that banned .30-30 ammo by name during the March 2004 vote.

Warner has been one of the few Democrats to back up his words with limited action at the state level; but he still seems to regard the Second Amendment as having something to do with hunting and that isn't the case. Also given the past record of Democrats in abandoning their pro-gun voters when they go national, Warner has a bit more work to do before my unease reaches an acceptable level.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Republicans are far from perfect but when it comes to gun legislation in DC they are the only people standing against the Democrats and the socialist media.

Nope. The Republicans are squandering the nation's hard-earned tax dollars even faster than the Democrats, as well as trashing the nation's civil rights. They differ from representatives of the Democratic (sic) party in name only.

 

[beerslurpy]

Guys, step 1 is to come to the realization that OUR situation is unworkable at the Federal level.

No, I disagree. Our situation will become very workable at the federal level as gun ownership and use becomes more widespread and popular. Widespread CCW is creating millions of people that are comfortable around guns and see gun control as irrational and useless.

This year they are going to try again repealing the DC bans. You have to remember the politicians dont jump into the deep end of the pool, they put their toe in first to test the water. That is what is happening now.

Additionally, the pro-gunnness of the republicans is constrained by the anti-gunness of the dems. The more times the dems lose big on gun control, the more they will drift away from it as a party platform. And the more pro-gun the republicans can get without loud denuciations of extremism. Remember how silent pro-gun repubicans were during the height of the gun control days? That is how anti-gun dems are eventually going to get.

We will win as long as we keep fighting.

 

[gezzer]

Not in MA it's full steam ahead in Boston

 

[cbsbyte]

No in Mass we have seen a small change of heart from even th emost strident anti-gun liberal and conservative(plenty of them in this state). It seems that even in "liberal" Mass politicans are starting to notice that the populace is not for strict gun control. Anyway we have low crime rate in the state so most people are not effected by guns as in other states.