Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-08-2019, 09:14 AM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,861

List of Progun Democrats?


I would have thought a list of all current Congresscritters with their NRA rating would be easy to find. I would have been wrong. The lists I can find are all old.

Is there any obvious way to compile a list of governors and members of Congress based on their attitudes towards guns? This ought to be easy.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?

Last edited by Paul in Qatar; 06-08-2019 at 09:16 AM.
  #2  
Old 06-08-2019, 10:06 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,364
Do you want NRA ratings, or do you want the candidates' positions? So far as I can tell, the NRA's evaluation consists entirely of "does the person have a D or an R after their name?".
  #3  
Old 06-08-2019, 10:17 AM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,861
Well, I am arguing elsewhere on the internet. I was hoping for an easy way to generate a list of progun Democrats. The NRA ranking would just be a means to that end.

(Let me see if I can go at it the other way, got to an anti-gun group for their ratings.)
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #4  
Old 06-08-2019, 10:21 AM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,861
Nope. Brady and Everytown gave me no obvious list.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #5  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:11 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,404
not a politician but Bill Maher has said he owns a gun for protection, I assume it's a handgun.
  #6  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:14 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,919
Never mind the NRA. Go to Gun Owners of America site and check their Congressional ratings. They are far more accurate than the NRA’s.
  #7  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:07 PM
bibliophage is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Maine
Posts: 10,658
NPR has a chart of past votes on gun control laws, organized by state: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/19/56673...d-on-gun-bills It's more than a year old, so includes some people who aren't in Congress any more (e.g., Heitkamp of North Dakota).
  #8  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:39 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Never mind the NRA. Go to Gun Owners of America site and check their Congressional ratings. They are far more accurate than the NRA’s.
If one believes John McCain should have been graded an "F-" on gun rights.

They are the Westboro Baptist Church of gun organizations, which may be great for its members, but let's not pretend they are in any way a mainstream, objective, or generally respected source.
  #9  
Old 06-10-2019, 12:04 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
If one believes John McCain should have been graded an "F-" on gun rights.
McCain should have been rated “F-“ on every issue. He frequently talked out of both sides of his mouth and wasn’t dependable on any of his stances which he was subject to change. He cast some pro-gun owner votes, then he would talk about supporting gun bans. Some were dumb enough to find his Maverick title endearing when in fact it was disingenuous and dangerous to our Republic.

Last edited by pkbites; 06-10-2019 at 12:04 PM.
  #10  
Old 06-10-2019, 01:18 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
McCain should have been rated “F-“ on every issue. He frequently talked out of both sides of his mouth and wasn’t dependable on any of his stances which he was subject to change. He cast some pro-gun owner votes, then he would talk about supporting gun bans. Some were dumb enough to find his Maverick title endearing when in fact it was disingenuous and dangerous to our Republic.
If one cannot distinguish between the Second Amendment views of John McCain and Nancy Pelosi -- two politicians whom the GOA rates identically -- I would submit that ratings are merely frivolous expressions of grudges and other subjective criteria. Which was my point: the GOA ratings are nothing for anyone but a fringe to pay attention to.

I can't even tell from their ratings if they are based on votes or actual positions, as opposed to mere feeeeeelings about particular people. Like, the GOA opposes Trump's pick to head ATF because he doesn't want to abolish the current system for background checks on gun buyers. So, he's terrible.
  #11  
Old 06-08-2019, 03:11 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
not a politician but Bill Maher has said he owns a gun for protection, I assume it's a handgun.
Owning firearms is no measure of being pro gun. Lots of people are of the attitude, okay for me but not for thee.
  #12  
Old 06-08-2019, 03:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Owning firearms is no measure of being pro gun. Lots of people are of the attitude, okay for me but not for thee.
Assuming one isn't for banning all handguns, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting some increased gun control measures and owning a gun. If they own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and want to ban AR-15s and 30 round magazines, then that's hypocritical, but not simply owning a handgun while being broadly in favor of gun control measures.
  #13  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:47 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Assuming one isn't for banning all handguns, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting some increased gun control measures and owning a gun. If they own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and want to ban AR-15s and 30 round magazines, then that's hypocritical, but not simply owning a handgun while being broadly in favor of gun control measures.
Sure. Not hypocritical, but not pro gun. More like the white moderate that King talked about in his letters from a Birmingham jail.

Just like someone can't be pro choice and want to make abortion illegal after 10 weeks of pregnancy.
  #14  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:56 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
More like the white moderate that King talked about in his letters from a Birmingham jail.
Comparing gun owners (or gun rights activists) to (routinely brutalized and even murdered) black people and civil rights activists strikes me as, at best, indicative of a gross misunderstanding of history.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-08-2019 at 05:57 PM.
  #15  
Old 06-10-2019, 01:50 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Owning firearms is no measure of being pro gun. Lots of people are of the attitude, okay for me but not for thee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Assuming one isn't for banning all handguns, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting some increased gun control measures and owning a gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Sure. Not hypocritical, but not pro gun.
Just to clarify, you would retract your "Lots of people are of the attitude, okay for me but not for thee" remark?
  #16  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:12 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Assuming one isn't for banning all handguns, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting some increased gun control measures and owning a gun. If they own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and want to ban AR-15s and 30 round magazines, then that's hypocritical, but not simply owning a handgun while being broadly in favor of gun control measures.
I don't even think that's hypocritical. Where's the contradiction in owning something and also thinking it should be more difficult/impossible to own? I own a pistol because it's legal and easy to do so. However, I would much prefer that nobody in the US had handguns and would readily give mine up if such laws were passed.
  #17  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:09 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,342
Here you go, from the Washington Post, as of February.

Four Democratic senators have at least an A- rating from the NRA.

Joe Manchin III (W.Va.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Jon Tester (Mont.)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D)

However, Manchin co-sponsored the bill to stiffen background checks after Sandy Hook, and Donnelly and Tester supported it.

Bernie Sanders, who insists he's a 2nd Amendment supporter, got a D- from the NRA in 2012, the last time he was rated by them.

Last edited by Kent Clark; 06-08-2019 at 05:09 PM.
  #18  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:51 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Assuming one isn't for banning all handguns, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting some increased gun control measures and owning a gun. If they own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and want to ban AR-15s and 30 round magazines, then that's hypocritical, but not simply owning a handgun while being broadly in favor of gun control measures.
I would challenge this by changing the issue from gun control to abortion. Is there room for someone to be labeled "pro choice" yet support restrictions on abortions? Maybe there is... As a litmus test for a candidate however, I can't think of any D seriously running for President who is considered pro choice but supports any of the new laws being passed across the nation or any real restrictions on abortions. I feel the same to be true considering gun control.

I think it is difficult to call someone a "pro gun" candidate who supports any increased gun control measures, or being broadly in favor of same. They are neutral at best and whether they own guns personally is neither here nor there for me.

It looks like someone else has posted a list of pro gun candidates so if this is a hijack, please disregard.
  #19  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:04 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
I would challenge this by changing the issue from gun control to abortion. Is there room for someone to be labeled "pro choice" yet support restrictions on abortions? Maybe there is... As a litmus test for a candidate however, I can't think of any D seriously running for President who is considered pro choice but supports any of the new laws being passed across the nation or any real restrictions on abortions. I feel the same to be true considering gun control.

I think it is difficult to call someone a "pro gun" candidate who supports any increased gun control measures, or being broadly in favor of same. They are neutral at best and whether they own guns personally is neither here nor there for me.

It looks like someone else has posted a list of pro gun candidates so if this is a hijack, please disregard.
I wasn't quibbling with not calling them "pro-gun", just implying that they are hypocrites. It's not hypocritical to be in favor of restrictions on abortion, unless one has (or helps a daughter/girlfriend/wife have) an abortion that would be illegal under those restrictions.
  #20  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:19 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Here you go, from the Washington Post, as of February.

Four Democratic senators have at least an A- rating from the NRA.

Joe Manchin III (W.Va.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Jon Tester (Mont.)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D)
Neither Donnelly nor Heitkamp are Senators anymore.
  #21  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:11 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,404
It's likely you will find most Dems rated high by the NRA in the south. A lot of them switched to the GOP but not all of them.
  #22  
Old 06-08-2019, 09:05 PM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,861
Thank you. My, wasn't that harder to find than you would have thought? People talk about NRA rankings all the time, but it is hard to find a clean list.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #23  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:46 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,364
Someone can be pro-<something> and still support reasonable restrictions on <something>. Someone who calls themselves pro-<something> and supports unreasonable restrictions on <something> is hypocritical. The point of contention is just which restrictions are reasonable. And on any issue, there will always be a few loud folks who call any restrictions at all unreasonable.
  #24  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:01 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Someone can be pro-<something> and still support reasonable restrictions on <something>. Someone who calls themselves pro-<something> and supports unreasonable restrictions on <something> is hypocritical. The point of contention is just which restrictions are reasonable. And on any issue, there will always be a few loud folks who call any restrictions at all unreasonable.
The word "reasonable" is truly key in this discussion.

With that being said, do you consider any of the viable D presidential candidates pro gun? I don't, nor do I consider Trump pro gun either FWIW.
  #25  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:12 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,364
None of them is in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment, which makes them all extremely pro-gun, by comparison with the vast majority of the world.
  #26  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:42 PM
thelurkinghorror is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Do you want NRA ratings, or do you want the candidates' positions? So far as I can tell, the NRA's evaluation consists entirely of "does the person have a D or an R after their name?".
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Never mind the NRA. Go to Gun Owners of America site and check their Congressional ratings. They are far more accurate than the NRA’s.
Eh, the GOA is more likely to base ratings on their party, so much that NRA As get Fs from them. Not that the NRA's ratings are necessarily honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Here you go, from the Washington Post, as of February.

Four Democratic senators have at least an A- rating from the NRA.

Joe Manchin III (W.Va.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Jon Tester (Mont.)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D)

However, Manchin co-sponsored the bill to stiffen background checks after Sandy Hook, and Donnelly and Tester supported it.

Bernie Sanders, who insists he's a 2nd Amendment supporter, got a D- from the NRA in 2012, the last time he was rated by them.
I don't think that's from February consieridering Heitkamp was out of office in January. Also no current political position, but Jim Webb was the most recent one to run a campaign for President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
None of them is in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment, which makes them all extremely pro-gun, by comparison with the vast majority of the world.
Quite frankly, "the world" doesn't have a say.
  #27  
Old 06-09-2019, 03:13 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
None of them is in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment, which makes them all extremely pro-gun, by comparison with the vast majority of the world.
Booker comes pretty close. And maybe Harris, but her official position is kinda moderate for dems. I think calling for Heller to be gotten rid of is fairly close to calling for repeal of the 2nd.


and there's this: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...cond-amendment

and this:
https://psmag.com/social-justice/dem...didates-do-not
Just look at the most recent National Rifle Association ratings for a dozen of the presidential candidates: Harris, Booker, Joe Biden, and John Delaney rate a seven on the NRA's one to 100 support scale. Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren, Beto O'Rourke, and Sherrod Brown all rate a 13. Governor John Hickenlooper got a failing grade from the NRA for his work to pass bipartisan gun control in Colorado. Only Montana Governor Steve Bullock pulls decent NRA ratings—a 43—but he doesn't look to be anywhere close to the top tier of candidates right now.

This agreement on gun-control issues marks a remarkable shift for the party. A little over a decade ago, most national Democratic candidates didn't want to bring up gun control on the stump. Democrats were largely convinced that their support for gun control had cost them control of the Congress in the 1990s and the presidency in 2000, and they radically retreated on the issue, while the NRA became far more aggressive and more explicitly partisan in its support and its messaging.


Of course the NRA ratings are pretty worthless.
  #28  
Old 06-09-2019, 04:03 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
None of them is in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment, which makes them all extremely pro-gun, by comparison with the vast majority of the world.
Good to know. Thanks for the international insight.
  #29  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:00 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
Quite frankly, "the world" doesn't have a say.
If everybody around you is telling you you're mistaken about something, don't you need to listen?

The OP would have benefited from defining "anti-gun" - using the NRA's definition is one way, sure, but it's not illuminating. Neither is defining any measures at all as being anti-gun, as some would have it.
  #30  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:37 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,364
Quote:
Quoth DrDeth:

I think calling for Heller to be gotten rid of is fairly close to calling for repeal of the 2nd.
So the US had no significant legal protections for guns until 11 years ago?
  #31  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:47 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
So the US had no significant legal protections for guns until 11 years ago?

More or less no. Each state or city was free to do whatever they wanted. Chicago, DC and SF all banned handguns. Altho the SF law was overturned just because CA state has authority over gun laws, not locals, Chicago and DC felt free to ban handguns. Up until then, no one had tried really widespread guns bans, only "nibbles".
  #32  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:46 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
On the contrary. I find the comparison quite reasonable, especially given that part of the motivation for the 14th amendment was to guarantee freed slaves the right to arms in order to resist those that would harm them. If you want to stack rank fundamental civil rights that can be an interesting exercise, but I'm comfortable with the analogy.
That you appear to believe that gun owners or gun activists face anything, in terms of risk to life, limb, and a fair chance at success, even remotely in the same ballpark as faced by black people during the early and mid 20th century, tells me a lot about why you're so focused on gun rights. If I thought gun owners and activists faced anything close to that, I'd be in your side on every gun issue.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-10-2019 at 08:48 AM.
  #33  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:57 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,251
Yeah, let's just get this straight: the people who drafted the Constitution and its amendments had quite a few very good ideas, and several really stupid ones. The idea that black Americans could resist discrimination by blowing oppressors away, Dirty Harry style, is 100% laughable.

I mean, someone has to be fucking bonkers to think that Emmitt Till would have been fine if he had been armed.
  #34  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:14 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Yeah, let's just get this straight: the people who drafted the Constitution and its amendments had quite a few very good ideas, and several really stupid ones.
It isn't their fault if someone today insists on ignoring or cherrypicking what they did write, or simply stating the opposite and attributing it to them. For instance, there are actual people here on the actual Dope who think the Constitution enables insurrections by "militias", even though it actually says the militia is there to suppress insurrections. How do you engage those types in any sort of useful discussion?
  #35  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:40 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That you appear to believe that gun owners or gun activists face anything, in terms of risk to life, limb, and a fair chance at success, even remotely in the same ballpark as faced by black people during the early and mid 20th century, tells me a lot about why you're so focused on gun rights. If I thought gun owners and activists faced anything close to that, I'd be in your side on every gun issue.
I'm not comparing the magnitude so this is not on point. I'm making an analogy. Gun rights are civil rights. Gay rights are civil rights. Trans rights are civil rights. These so called pro-gun Democrats aren't really pro-gun just like the white moderates who King criticized weren't sufficiently supportive of the rights of black people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Yeah, let's just get this straight: the people who drafted the Constitution and its amendments had quite a few very good ideas, and several really stupid ones. The idea that black Americans could resist discrimination by blowing oppressors away, Dirty Harry style, is 100% laughable.

I mean, someone has to be fucking bonkers to think that Emmitt Till would have been fine if he had been armed.
Certainly not for Till. And not for many - arms are not some magical talisman. But in general, do you believe that blacks post civil war would have suffered the same level of harm if they were on equal footing of arms with their oppressors?

As Southern Black Codes and the KKK were disarming freedmen in the south, the Freedmen's Bureau was extended, overriding presidential veto. The Freedmen's Bureau Act gave ex-slaves "any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons, including the right to.....inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms."

When Bingham drafted and was arguing in favor of the 14th amendment, he said, that it would "enforce in its letter and its spirit the bill of rights as embodied in that Constitution." Bingham quoted the seventh section of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, which provided that all persons shall "have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms."

The discussion of arms when the 14th amendment was debated was pervasive (not exclusive). Its author and supporters certainly believed that black Americans could resist oppression and had the right to defend themselves with arms.
  #36  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:52 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
But in general, do you believe that blacks post civil war would have suffered the same level of harm if they were on equal footing of arms with their oppressors?
Without question, absolutely yes. I see a reasonable case for even more violence: today we see police shooting black men for fear they were reaching for a gun, which in too many cases is clearly an error, but in most cases is probably indicative of a bias or fear of the victims.

I have not a moment's hesitation that the corrupt racist power structures, especially of the segregationist police of the civil rights era, would have undertook a campaign of violence using the "black man is going to kill cops to defend himself" idea as a pretext for their clearly racist causes.

Quote:
The discussion of arms when the 14th amendment was debated was pervasive (not exclusive). Its author and supporters certainly believed that black Americans could resist oppression and had the right to defend themselves with arms.
I don't argue that the author was insincere in his beliefs. I'm saying his beliefs were completely and outrageously stupid. To put it another way, some politicians thought founding Liberia was a great idea to bring about justice, and that too was a stupid notion.
  #37  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:16 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Without question, absolutely yes. I see a reasonable case for even more violence: today we see police shooting black men for fear they were reaching for a gun, which in too many cases is clearly an error, but in most cases is probably indicative of a bias or fear of the victims.

I have not a moment's hesitation that the corrupt racist power structures, especially of the segregationist police of the civil rights era, would have undertook a campaign of violence using the "black man is going to kill cops to defend himself" idea as a pretext for their clearly racist causes.
That is what the corrupt racist power structures were already doing. Armed blacks were a motivator in passing the black codes across the south. Disarming this populace was necessary to oppress them. It's like some alternate history exercise I suppose, but I disagree that blacks would have suffered the same or worse levels of harm had they been well armed. This idea is not unheard of today - the Black Panthers armed themselves when existing power structures would not enforce their rights. The Pink Pistols motto is armed gays don't get bashed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think this analogy is dismissive and flippant to those who have actually been brutalized and worse over these rights.
I on the other hand, think it's precisely on point.
  #38  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'm not comparing the magnitude so this is not on point. I'm making an analogy. Gun rights are civil rights. Gay rights are civil rights. Trans rights are civil rights. These so called pro-gun Democrats aren't really pro-gun just like the white moderates who King criticized weren't sufficiently supportive of the rights of black people.
I think this analogy is dismissive and flippant to those who have actually been brutalized and worse over these rights. Gun owners and activists have not been and are not under threat of brutalization for speaking up about their rights (unless they're black, interestingly enough). That's why LGBTQ-rights and the mid 20th CR movements are notable -- because these were people that were being brutalized and murdered. They did not have access to a fair chance at a successful life, or even in many cases a fair chance at a life free of state brutalization (and state tolerance of brutalization).

There's nothing close to that kind of challenge or obstacle facing gun owners and gun activists. Considering how thoroughly the gun rights advocates have won in court, over and over again, the continuing fight for gun rights appears to me as much more similar to "men's rights advocates" than to the civil righs movements of the last half century. You guys won and keep winning.

You're not Rosa Parks, fighting against oppression. You're (in a more apt analogy) the rich guy telling Ronald Reagan your taxes should be lower.
  #39  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:48 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Yeah, let's just get this straight: the people who drafted the Constitution and its amendments had quite a few very good ideas, and several really stupid ones. The idea that black Americans could resist discrimination by blowing oppressors away, Dirty Harry style, is 100% laughable.

I mean, someone has to be fucking bonkers to think that Emmitt Till would have been fine if he had been armed.
I dont think we need another thread on guns, in general, maybe we shoudl try to stay more on Democratic candidates and their stances?

Mea culpa too.
  #40  
Old 06-10-2019, 12:00 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,251
Good point.
  #41  
Old 06-10-2019, 03:12 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont think we need another thread on guns, in general, maybe we shoudl try to stay more on Democratic candidates and their stances?

Mea culpa too.
The OP asked about governors and members of Congress. The thread title asks about Democrats.

Wikipedia tells me there are 23 Dem governors, 235 Dem house representatives, and 45 Dem senators. It would be tedious, but one could, as bordelond suggested, check each one's individual stance to see if they self-identify as "pro-gun" or not. I suspect the end result would be a very short list of Dems elected to statewide or federal offices that self-identify as "pro-gun".

I think any organization that cared enough to actually rate politicians, like NRA / GOA / Everytown is going to be partisan enough on the issue to not really be trusted by the other side or moderates.
  #42  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:55 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,108
That only makes sense if there is an inalienable right to gun ownership, but not to anyone else's life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. And if gun ownership was an immutable, inborn characteristic, not a lifestyle choice. And if gun owners were actually being persecuted in any detectable way. But none of those things are true, are they?

IOW, you're presenting the absolutist single-issue ideologue's view, not that of a responsible member of society. It should be no surprise if you rate any politician with something less than that fervor as "anti-gun". And Dr. King would be appalled, I'm fairly sure.
  #43  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:59 AM
bordelond's Avatar
bordelond is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: La Rive Ouest
Posts: 10,288
Democratic Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards considers himself pro-gun.

That first link, OnTheIssues.org, might be of use to the OP. I didn't see a neat-&-tidy list available, but you can look up any individual politician you like.
  #44  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:13 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,364
Someone would have to be even more bonkers to think that Philando Castile would have been fine if he were armed.
  #45  
Old 06-10-2019, 11:34 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,449
Even if you believe in gun rights, trying to compare them to trans rights or gay rights or anything else like that is a bad analogy. Those are about people. Guns are things. Trans rights is about giving trans people the same rights as everyone else. Gay rights is about giving gay people the same rights as everyone else. Gun rights IS NOT about giving guns the same rights as everyone else.

Gun rights are about granting people the rights to use guns. That is a fundamentally different concept. Ownership is not the same thing as equality. Trans rights is not about owning and using trans people.

I'm not even going to take a side. This should be something all sides can agree on. You cannot argue that the rights of an object are the same as those of a person.

It's just a quirk of language that we can use the same syntax to describe these different concepts.
  #46  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:13 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,364
The fact that they're no compromise is precisely why it's not useful to listen to them.
  #47  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:17 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The fact that they're no compromise is precisely why it's not useful to listen to them.

I’ll ask again: are you willing to compromise any of your civil liberties?
  #48  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I’ll ask again: are you willing to compromise any of your civil liberties?

Sure.

1st Ad: I think making and selling Kiddie porn with live underage kids should be illegal, and seriously penalized. I am Ok with laws against Libel, slander, plagiarism and copyright abuse. I dont think that your religion should make me do anything.


4th: Privacy- you only have a right to privacy when you have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

And so forth. Just like the 2nd Ad, as set out in Heller: 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


No Right is absolute.

But again, we are getting away from which Dem candidates have which gun policies/programs/platforms/

Last edited by DrDeth; 06-11-2019 at 05:36 PM.
  #49  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:16 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I’ll ask again: are you willing to compromise any of your civil liberties?
I agree with DrDeth. We make little compromises all the time. As a law former enforcement officer, you should be well-acquainted with the fact that the right to be secure in our persons and our possessions isn't a matter that hasn't been encroached in various ways in the interests of balancing liberties with safety or common sense.
  #50  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:10 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
As a law former enforcement officer.
What is a law former enforcement officer?

If you are suggesting I am a former LEO, you are wrong. I went back on the job with another agency after I retired. Just couldn’t stay away.

Let’s take a look at a current issue.

For decades the BATFE insisted that bump stocks and assorted external trigger accessories were perfectly legal to possess and use.

Then by Presidential decree the government announced those items were not legal. No Vote, just an order by Trump. Then hundreds of thousands of citizens were forced to surrender their property or become federal felons.

No act of Congress.
No due process.
No compensation for seized property.

Substitute bump stock for any other item regulated by the government and you should see the tyranny in this.

Due process and just compensation for seized assets are civil rights. The “extremist” GOA fought for these civil rights while the NRA betrayed it’s members and went along with having lawfully obtained property confiscated with no due process or compensation.

The GOA is a tough grader but it’s ratings of Pols are an accurate reflection of their overall stances and actions regarding gun rights.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017