schucks. no more firearms forum at democraticunderground

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the national level, the prohibitionists have indeed achieved near-hegemony in the Democratic party. Reid is an exception, as is Feingold (who recently rejected the AWB; he has some 1st Amendment problems on other issues, though). That is not true at the state level; in some states, Dems are just as likely to be pro-gun as Repubs.

I think this post from madmom2005 pretty much sums it up:

AWBaloney

Statistically speaking, assault weapons dont get used in many crimes. Totally agree with the sentiment that if we push this we are going to get clobbered AGAIN why bait the freakin NRA?

I mean do you intentionally go to the zoo, crawl over the fence and kick a grizzly bear in the ass?

Why the the hell do we keep on doing this?

I'll tell you why, we have strayed from our roots, this wouldn't even have been thought about, let alone done in the mid 60s. If you brought up such an idea at a precinct caucus you would get laughed out of the building.

Feinstein is one of my Senators and I think she has taken leave of her senses, if anything she is preparing for a run for CA Gov. & she doesn't give a fig about the national party.
Click to expand...

As far as the communitarian branch of the Democratic party, here's their manifesto: http://www.cla.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/Comparative/SOURCES/communitarian.htm

Scary stuff. And note that a lot of neoconservatives have also adopted a lot of communitarian ideas on other issues...
 
>> That is not true at the state level; in some states, Dems are just as likely to be pro-gun as Repubs. <<

To a degree I think you are right, but how many of these states ended up as "blue" ones on the electorial map in 2000 and 2004? In "fly-over country" the Democrat Party in the South, Midwest and Western states (excluding the ones on the coast) have been reduced to minority status by the party's Communitarian/Liberal (take your pick) core on the East/West coast and a few other places. So-called "Conservative Democrats" have been pushed out of the party and become Republicans or something else. I don't see this situation changing in the foreseeable future.
 
Gun control is NOT a core liberal issue
Click to expand...

It is, however, a core leftist issue and we are talking about leftists here. there are no liberals in any relevant positions within the Socialst Democratic party these days.
 
Someone better tell them that.
Click to expand...

There's certainly plenty of people trying...you may find virginia mountainman's post in the thread "Alienated Rural Democrat" rather interesting.

It is, however, a core leftist issue and we are talking about leftists here. there are no liberals in any relevant positions within the Socialst Democratic party these days.
Click to expand...

It has not historically been a core leftist issue in the U.S., either. The group of ivory-tower urban elitists that currently run the Democratic party have tried to make it so, but the rank and file are rebelling. A large number of Democrats who are fed up with the national party's out-to-lunch stand on guns and other issues crossed party lines to vote Republican in 2000 and 2004, and a handful of national Dems have pulled their heads out of the sand and their fingers out of their ears long enough to notice...

Do consider--were it not for gun-owning moderate and liberal Democrats that voted their guns in the 2004 election, we'd be discussing the policies of President Kerry right now. The national Democratic leadership does NOT want to talk about pro-gun Democratic voters, but ~36% of Democrats own guns and most don't want to see them taken away any more than a gun-owning Republican would, and they are starting to make their voices heard.

I don't argue that the Republican party has become much more pro-gun than the national Democratic party over the last 11 years (because the Republicans went through the same thing in 1992 that the Dems are currently going through now, when Bush 1 lost the election largely over the gun issue, and because of all the anti-gun Republicans that lost their seats to pro-gunners in 1994 and following).

I'm just saying that gun owners on the right need to realize that they do have common cause with gun owners on the left, of which there are a significant number. Ben Franklin's dictum about "if we don't hang together, we will surely all hang separately" come to mind. Be careful about bashing a voter who might actually be on your side.

Now if the target is a gun-404 authoritarian like Feinstein, bash away...
 
benEzra: Regarding your observation that the national Dem party is completely anti-gun, but there are plenty of pro-gun Dems on the state level.

I would say both yes and no to your observation.

I would say that yes, many times, while still on a local level, Dems sometimes do come out as pro-gun.

But I say they do so largely out of political necessity.

My two prime examples: Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

I'm a native Arkie. I lived the entirety of my childhood with Slick Willy as governor.

When Tricky Bill was just gov. of Arkansas, he never, ever, ever made a single, solitary, anti-gun peep.

To do so in Arkansas would have meant political death.

Only when he got on a national stage did the anti-gun jihad become apparent.

Same for Al Gore......while on the Tennesee stage, he was not overtly anti-gun. But once he went national, vehemently anti-gun.

So please explain to me, benEzra, how does that change happen, unless it's a case of go-along, get-along on the state level, and then a coming-out for the true Democrat view on guns once on a national stage?

hillbilly
 
If you want to know what the core values of any group are, look at their leaders. How many leaders of the Democratic Party, at the national level, are pro-gun?

This is an intensely important question because of the way our government functions. Congress works through committees. The Committee chairmen have much more power than your ordinary congressman or senator.

And the committee chairmen are the senior members of the majority party.

And in the Democratic Party, they are anti-gun to a man.
 
Quote:
----------------------------
I might be beating a dead horse here, but how do you guys explain Reagan and Bush I anti-gun actions?
-----------------------------

Neither enjoyed the kind of majority in Congress Bush II does.

When Reagan signed the Firearms Owner's Protection Act, he expected an NRA official to be there -- and took it as a snub when none showed up.

Bush II has a great advantage -- he can SAY things that pander to the anti-gunners, when politics dictates, and at the same time be sure Congress won't pass any such law. :D
 
Perhaps I am more cynical. I see people like Schumer/Feinstein/Kennedy as nothing more than opportunists. They can play to the sentiments of the masses by taking on an issue (restricting gun ownership) that doesn't require them to appropriate or expend any money. They just whip their uneducated base into a frenzy over a manufactured issue and watch the votes roll in. You get the devotion of the automatons without needing pork or pork-barrel politics. Rather clever if you can get it to work. Somewhat dangerous if people wake up and smell the deception or realize that THEIR rights are being denied as well.

I am inclined to think McCarthy and Brady are true believers, but you never know.
 
The great danger in propaganda is that you may start beleiveing your own. The anti-gun crowd have talked themselves into becoming True Believers.

Finestein likes to talk about the shooting of Supervisor Harvey Milk (He was murdered by another Supervisor, and she was there.) She has never asked herself, "What if I had had a gun? I could have stopped it!"
 
wow... madmom2005 was starting to sound pretty sexy there getting all rowled up over Feinstein and quivering in the knees over the NRA, then I came to my sense and remembered she is a Cali dem :D ;)
 
Gun Control = A Core Lib/Dem Issue?

Well, now, let's run this little legislative Litmus Test up the political flagpole:

Proposed: new federal legislation that clarifies/strengthens the 2nd Amendment by stipulating that:

1. The 2A is an Individual (not collective) right;
2. The 2A protects Individuals' rights to use guns for (a) Self-Defense, AND (b) Resistance to tyranny and abuse of political power... as well as the usually-but-reluctantly acceptable (to many Lib/Dems) "legitimate sporting Purposes";
3. Individually owned guns shall never be "registered";
4. Individually-owned guns shall never be subjected to ANY form of state or federal TAXATION (beyond, say, standard sales taxes).

Then, let's see how many Lib/Dems sign on to support this legislation... eh?
 
(slightly OT)

NHBB- ever notice how many NH-types there are on this board? Given how small our state it, think we are over represented?

Even our Democrats tend to be pro-gun (with the exception of that dipstick senator from Portsmouth NH).
 
I second what Hillbilly said about Clinton. Not one peep of any anti-gun sentiment while living his whole life in elected office down here. Also don't forget Al Gore was also pro-life while still in good ole TN.
 
So they adopted whatever principles they thought would get them elected? Shocked, shocked I am.

Anybody see the DOJ decision r.e. the 2nd amendment as an individual right? I was a little late in getting to my American Rifleman this month. Good article about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top