Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Democratic Party rethinking gun control?

Politics Democrats Gun Control 2003

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 18 October 2003 - 11:25 AM

http://www.washtimes...04703-1418r.htm

Quote

The perception that Democrats are hostile to the rights of gun owners has damaged the party in the last two elections and will do so again in 2004 unless they change their ways, the Democratic Leadership Council said yesterday.

Congratulations! You've stumbled upon the obvious.

Quote

Al From, founder of the centrist DLC, and Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas said the antigun image perpetuates the idea that Democrats are "cultural elites," alienating them from mainstream voters.

That's it exactly. "You can't handle having a gun" is a message of contempt, especially if you own one yourself or have bodyguards.

Quote

In the 2000 presidential election, Republicans enjoyed big advantages among voters who own firearms, frequently attend church, serve in the military and are married with children, Mr. From said.

So, acknowledging that their elitist position is costing them votes, what are the democrats going to change?

... nothing.

Quote

"The formula for Democrats is to say that they support the Second Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes" in current gun laws, Mr. Penn said, adding that polls show the term "gun safety" is received better than the more commonly used term "gun control."

In this context, 'closing loopholes' is usually codespeak for "We're going to make it financially and time-prohibitive for you to ever exercise your rights. If you manage to pull it off, you'll be saddled with an inferior product.".  Look at the situation in California. :eek:

Quote

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, scoffed at the notion that a "poll-tested moniker" would make a difference in elections.
    "They are underestimating the intelligence of voters," Mr. Arulanandam said. "What matters to NRA members and the tens of millions of gun owners is not rhetoric, but action. It's a dangerous gamble for these groups to assume they can pull one over on the voters."

Agreed.

It would be great to see the democrats affirm the constitutional rights of the people vis a vis the 2nd amendment; this may be the first step on that path. For now, it's just rhetoric.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 18 October 2003 - 11:45 AM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#2 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 October 2003 - 12:21 PM

No the best thing would be for them to actually believe the ideals they speak for. I may disagree with them but I get tired of double speak of the Dems.  Just as I am tired of the same from Repub.

I am glad that Bayh has found a format to send this message.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#3 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 October 2003 - 12:50 PM

This is so illustrative of what's wrong with the party.

See, the more they do this, the less there is to distinguish them from the Republican Party.  All the Republicans need to do is stop catering to the right extremist element on the social issues and voila, it's in the bag.

Oh wait, Arnold just proved that didn't he.

I'm not objecting to the Democrats taking a more sensible stance on gun control, I just don't see how it's really going to help them.

Lil
Posted Image

#4 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 October 2003 - 02:23 PM

Becasue it is the way they are seen. This is to protect the incumbants otherwise they will be removed. Basically with folks moving towards the right it will cost the "Cultural Elite" seats in Congress,and if they are going to remain in power They must be seen to make that move otherwise they will be preceived to be the "same old thing"
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#5 Blondie

Blondie

    The Peroxide Jihad

  • Dead account
  • 687 posts

Posted 18 October 2003 - 02:33 PM

The Democratic Party better rethink a lot of things, or they're gonna get to see four more years of Bush.  None of their candidates for this election exactly wow me (neither does Bush, for that matter).

Best thing they could do is get rid of the Clinton stigma.
The ditz FKA TrancesHuggyPillow

#6 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 18 October 2003 - 02:43 PM

Rov, the primary advocates for gun control within the Democratic Party are urban African Americans.  Are they "elitists?"
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#7 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 18 October 2003 - 02:59 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Oct 18 2003, 11:50 AM, said:

This is so illustrative of what's wrong with the party.

See, the more they do this, the less there is to distinguish them from the Republican Party.  All the Republicans need to do is stop catering to the right extremist element on the social issues and voila, it's in the bag.

Oh wait, Arnold just proved that didn't he.

I'm not objecting to the Democrats taking a more sensible stance on gun control, I just don't see how it's really going to help them.
Word! :)

Lil said it very well - the Democrats have to stop drifting toward the mythical "center" on every issue. It's this mealy-mouthed approach that's costing them support. If voters want a right wing party, they'll vote for the Republicans.

In my country the same thing happened for many years. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives gradually moved toward the centre, until they became as similar as Tweedledee and Tweedledum - you couldn't tell the difference between them. People voted for the party they felt most comfortable with (which was the Liberals in our case) and the Conservatives were all but destroyed. Now, almost fifteen years later, they're still fighting among themselves over how far to the right the party should be, and have no hope of winning the next election. In your country the same thing could happen, except in reverse, with the Republicans winning big time and the Democrats reduced to a remnant, fighting the Greens for survival.

Dance with the folks that brought you, I say. Stick to your (metaphorical) guns, and if the voters don't like that, at least you'll go down to defeat while still being true to yourself. If the Democrats really gave some thought to their platform and actually ran as liberal types, I think they'd be surprised at the amount of support out there.

I honestly don't understand why the Democrats even want to court gun owners. It doesn't look like that segment of society is interested in what they have to say.
Per aspera ad astra

#8 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 18 October 2003 - 03:03 PM

Agreed Lil. I'm extremely concerned about where the democratic party is headed now. I like it far better when there's some parity between the aisles, and I just don't see that happening in the near future.

THP-- Agreed.

Quote

Rov, the primary advocates for gun control within the Democratic Party are urban African Americans. Are they "elitists?"

Zack-- That's a bit different; If we're talking about fighting urban crime more effectively, or making sure people with criminal records don't get guns, then I'm on board. That's usually not what the gun control issue is about; were that the case, the issue would be police funding and enforcing existing laws. How much of the urban crime that the African Americans in question are concerned about involves legally owned firearms? Very little, I would confidently wager.

What I was addressing was the philosophical position that, "As a society, we've moved beyond the need for civilian gun ownership" or "Only licensed professionals should have guns" or some sort of philosophical position that 'the greater good' demands that we surrender our right to personal gun ownership; the best, albeit non-political, example would be Rosie O'Donnel who doesn't want you to own a gun, but hires armed guards for her own protection.

There is an elitist attitude that posits people like you and me can't handle owning a firearm. There's also the idea that we need to more effectively deal with all sorts of crime in the inner city, including gun crime. I support the second, and abhor the first.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#9 bandit

bandit

    Bond, Fuzzy Bond

  • Islander
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 12:28 AM

Minor threadjack here.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

um, correct me if i am wrong, but by "The people" does it not mean "The american people" as in "citizens of the united states" ?
so technically the only loophole possible would be an immigrant buying a gun. (now admittedly they did not say what KIND of arms, but they meant firearms, that much is clear.)

so yes, by all means, restrict the purchase of firearms by immigrants.

aside from that, what loophole is possible?

#10 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 12:31 AM

Well the Constitution doesn't say what KIND of fire arm.  It certainly doesn't say "any firearm" so I think that's one area for wiggle room.

But other than that I think that the right to bear arms is one of the most clear and unassailable things in the Constitution.
Posted Image

#11 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 12:37 AM

Well since it is also illegal to carry a sword on my belt in cities such as NYC or LA  we can say that the founding fathers meant the arms attached to our shoulders and  that the government was SO trustworthy as to make needing weapons  pointless.

I mean only thugs need guns,and those wanting them must be thugs.  

If you believe that then you should vote Democratic. As thier platform states they favor controls that keep law bidding citzens from getting access to weapsons.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#12 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 12:41 AM

I don't know the specific city ordinances but I believe the law regarding things like blades has to do with carrying CONCEALED weapons.  

Lil
Posted Image

#13 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 01:39 AM

MuseZack, on Oct 18 2003, 07:43 PM, said:

Rov, the primary advocates for gun control within the Democratic Party are urban African Americans.  Are they "elitists?"
What is your source of information for this claim?

I don't necessarily disagree with you -- although I don't necessarily agree with you, either -- but it seems that without including reference you are making an unsubstantiated (and possibly unsupportable) claim.

As for the issue of gun control and the Second Amendment, I must agree with Lil in that the right to bear arms is one of the clearest and straight-forward rights in the U.S. Constitution.  And indeed, if one studies the history of the Second Amendment, it is not "right" of hunters to hunt but a guaranty of the rights of citizens to protect themselves against their fellow citizens and their government.

We (or rather, the Democratic party) may not like it, we may disagree with it, we may think it outmoded, dangerous and that it must be changed but it is our U.S. Constitution.


I hold a little bit of revolution is a good thing every now and then.
          -- Thomas Jefferson
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#14 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 02:03 AM

^
Not only that (hey me and Yama agreeing AGAIN!  Who knew!):  the right to bear arms has its source in the planting of English soldiers in the colonies to the extent of them intruding in people's homes while the colonists were prohibited from carrying fire arms.  So it's got some solid historical backing.

And it's valid even today I say.

Sheesh I can't believe it.

Soon people will start calling me conservative.   :wacko:
Posted Image

#15 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 05:23 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Oct 21 2003, 01:03 AM, said:

Sheesh I can't believe it.

Soon people will start calling me conservative.   :wacko:
That's nothing. Watch this...

That ammendment really isn't so clear, because they wrote it with that wussy clause in front of the part that is quoted above... something like "A well-ordered militia being necessary to the security of the Union..."

You could interpret that fragment as either a legal condition, so that the following part is falsified whenever the condition is not met, or as an explanation of their rationale, which can still be used for some guidance in how laws are interpretted by judges and how new laws are made and such. This allows one to seriously make the case either that a militia is no longer necessary to the Union's security and thus the right is no longer Constitutionally protected, or that what I lovingly call "gun-owner persecution laws" are still within the founders' spirit and intent because they don't effect the militia and security issue, or that the real main point of most gun owners and their advocates (about crime and self-defense and even hunting) is precisely NOT mentioned in the Constitution or its ammendments and thus NOT a Constitutional-rights issue at all. Furthermore, since the ammendment only mentions this one reason, and it's often interpretted as referring to the people's ability to protect themselves from government rather than from other countries, following the "equal arms to the people as to the government" thinking leads to conclusions most people find absurd (such as that if the government can have giant machine guns and fighter planes and Bradleys and cruise missiles, then so can any citizen), and this can easily be used in an argument that the whole ammendment is useless/invalid because the founders couldn't really have thought that if they'd known what weapons would be like not so long after they wrote it.

When you only quote the good part, it sounds like a good ammendment. But the whole thing's not so solid. It's kindo like the separation of church and state having no more Constitutional mention than that "Congress shall make no law" about it, which neglects the other, more insidious ways Christianity has tried to take over government (or at least parts thereof). Those guys might have had the right ideas on these issues, but they just didn't go far enough.

Edited by Delvo, 21 October 2003 - 05:28 AM.


#16 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 08:50 AM

Kevin Street, on Oct 18 2003, 02:59 PM, said:

Lil said it very well - the Democrats have to stop drifting toward the mythical "center" on every issue. It's this mealy-mouthed approach that's costing them support.
I agree. The Democrats need to go left. Go left, young dems! Leftward and onward! Go as far left as you think is safe, and then go farther! Trust me. It'll work.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#17 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 09:02 AM

Kevin Street, on Oct 18 2003, 02:59 PM, said:

I honestly don't understand why the Democrats even want to court gun owners. It doesn't look like that segment of society is interested in what they have to say.
Wisconsin and Minnesota are traditionally Democratic states. Both states are full of hunters who get really annoyed when candidates start talking about gun control. Up here any issue remotely related to hunting will turn even the most politically apathetic into a wild-eyed radical. Gore made a big mistake here in 2000 while speaking to a group of Democrats about supporting gun control. The next day the news was full of reports of staunch Democrats rethinking their support of Gore. Quite a few hunters were turned off. Gore's win here was narrow.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#18 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 02:18 PM

I missed Kevin's quote until Drew highlighted it.

Kevin-- Simple: The democrats are perceived by many of the all-important swing voters as cultural elitists. Shedding that image would be a significiant PR step.

The LA (Lose, Arnold!) Times realizes this:

http://www.latimes.c...omment-opinions

Quote

The problem is an extremist gun lobby that perpetuates its power by trumpeting a paranoid fantasy that a liberal elite is out to rip the weapons away from every gun owner in the United States.

<Helpful Hint: When accusing others of being paranoid, it's best not to sound paranoid yourself.>
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#19 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 02:49 PM


The second Amendment reads as follows:

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Source:
http://www.archives....transcript.html

If I remember my history right this Amendment, was written by John Adams, one of the most strident of the revolutionaries. It has been speculate that this is the ultimate check and balance on governmental power.

I would point out that in saying “A well regulated Militia,” it dose not say regulated by whom. It does not say that the federal government, or the state governments will maintain this militia. In the day that this was written militias where local affairs, usually encompassing a few towns, or a county at best.

I would also point out that the term used is "Arms," not pistol, not rifle, not shot gun, but, “Arms!” a much more inclusive term.

Remember it is said that "power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

Just some points to ponder:

The once and future:
Sparky::

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#20 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 21 October 2003 - 05:08 PM

Quote

I would also point out that the term used is "Arms," not pistol, not rifle, not shot gun, but, “Arms!” a much more inclusive term.

Wonder where I could pick up a hand held rocket launcher????
Can't Touch This!!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics, Democrats, Gun Control, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users