The bill to replace the 1994 assault weapon ban would have banned most semi auto rifle and shotguns due to their use and design by the military. The dems have had a boner for semi autos for quite some time. Many, not most, would ablsolutely love to get rid of handguns as well.
Sorry, No, You don’t get to exclude points you don’t like by setting artificial boundaries on the topic.
The topic is about whether Dems need to let go of gun issues as a means to get back to White House. Since you seem to agree that GWB is just as much a “gun grabber” as Diane Feinstein then the answer seems to be no. Gun control issues are not political liabilities for presidential candidates. We’ve had back to back two term presidents who supported the same assault weapons ban.
How about a cite for what most Dems would love? Do you actually have a linkable source for this extraordinary assertion or are you relying on your own psychic powers?
Because the American Libertarian party is a bunch of raving nutbags? Borderline anarchists? That couldn’t poll their way out of a paper bag?
I’m a moderate Libertarian. I don’t think we should privatize everything under the sun, then, just to be safe, make up a few more agencies and privatize them.
Of course not. Even tho’ many Democrats fervently wish it were not the case, the Dems realize that proposing an outright ban on guns is a non-starter. This, however, only alters the strategy; it does not modify the goal of broad bans on entire classes of guns. Janet Reno is a politician and has made rather loud rumblings about running for governor of Florida as a Democrat - thus her inclusion on a list of prominent Democrats is indeed valid. Surely a Democratic governor of a state with such a large number of electoral ballots would have a not insignificant voice in the party.
I pulled 'em outta my ass. Just like the ever smaller circle with which you anti-gun rights guys in this thread keep circumscribing the acceptable (to you and the rest of your anti-freedom comrades) evidence that the Democratic party is anti-gun.
The simple and undeniable fact is, there are hundreds upon hundreds of examples of the intentions of Democratic politicians to ban guns of a staggering variety and/or make illegal ownership of any type of firearm by wide swathes of the citizenry. Not to mention numerous plans for de facto bans through various bureaucratic and technical means and/or by outlawing the manufacture, transport and ownership and possession of broad categories of ammunition and ammunition components. Only by employing a seriously defective outlook and blatant revisionist tactics can the Democratic party be even remotely considered to be anything but anti-gun rights.
Reno- See Myth #10. Can you find a reputable citation that the quote actually exists?
Snork. You ask me for a “reliable” cite of Reno’s snippet after posting something rebutting it that’s written by “anonymous” on a friggin’ tripod.com page? Not to mention that your cite that doesn’t even directly refute what I’ve posted. That’s balls, man - big, swingin’ brass ones.
I Never said I didn’t like your inclusion of republicans into a debate regarding democrats wanting to ban guns. I only suggested you begin a new thread for that topic. If you don’t want to, I couldn’t care less. GW is no more a pro gun candidate than John Kerry is/was… well, maybe a little more. This thread however borders on the pathetic as many cites and examples have been given showing the willingness of several prominent democrats to ban some guns, but that alone apparently does not make them a gun banner.
What started this debate was this comment:
Note that ITR didn’t mention banning ALL guns, nor were the date and prominence factors added until later. Bottom line, it has been shown that several members of the democratic party have recently attempted to ban guns, not all guns, but guns all the same. Are they friends of gun owners instead because they have limited themselves to only banning one or several classes of firearms at a time? Have they offered any legislation to reduce the restrictions on buying, or owning guns? Have they proposed legislation to remove bans on any weapons that have banned in the past. I know that I would love to buy a USAS 12 but the last I checked it was banned around 1994 by legislation signed by the president at the time.
So I guess I should vote democrat since by only banning assault weapons in 1994, attempting to ban many more semi autos in 2004 (s 1431) and then proposing legislation to ban .50 caliber rifles (H.R. 654) they really are the friend of the gun owner and certainly not looking to ban everything, just what is on their mind at that moment.
What makes you think that any significant number “fervently wishes it?” This is sheer demagoguery. You’re ignoring actual stated policy and party platforms in favor of some secret agenda that you can somehow psychically divine. I could say (with some justification and many cherry picked quotes) that many Republicans ferevently want the US to be a theocracy. I bet I could make a better case for that than you can for Dems wanting an all out gun ban, but that doesn’t mean the pursuit of such an agenda is - or is likely to become- ay sort of official GOP platform or legislative movement.
I am curious about your statement that an outright ban would be a non-starter. It’s not that I think you’re wrong, I agree with you, but if a push for an outright ban would hurt them politically, then why would they “fervently wish” for it. If their motivations for banning guns are not political then what are they motivated by?
A goal shared by your president.
Why don’t you wait until she actually gets elected to something before you start including her on lists or imbuing her with power? Either that or just admit you were padding your list.
Excuse me? Are you saying you made the quotes up or are you just declining to provide links?
“Anti-gun rights?” “Anti-freedom?”
I am neither of those things, as I’ve already stated. I do not support gun bans. I did not support the assault weapons ban. I am not anti-gun. I am not arguing for gun bans of any kind. I am just arguing that the portrayal of Democrats as “gun grabbers” who secretly want an all out ban on guns is unfounded political demagoguery.
And “anti-freedom?” For God’s sake, Beer, I thought you were marginally above that kind of rhetoric.
Cites? Links?
It sounds like you’re just resorting to typical NRA hysteria, using reductionist and slippery slope rhetoric to twist any attempt at regulating firearms into a crypto-prohibitionist movement by the Democratic party. The fact is that you have not and cannot show any legislative movement or intent by the party as a party to institute an all out ban,
Can I call 'em or what? 
Regards,
Shodan
I’d say you must be using your own powers to know that I meant most, when I clearly went out of my way to type MANY. How about we start with all of the dems that signed onto the 1994 assault weapons ban and then its successor in 2004? In that legislation was a provision to label many handguns as assault weapons and them ban them. How about (S. 527 ) make sure you check out the co sponsors on that one. I’d say they were prominent.
How does voting for the assault weapons ban translate into a secret desire to ban all guns?
Oh really? Well the following steps don’t appear to have proceeded, and it’s been eleven years… but I’m sure it’s right around the corner.
Funny you should say that. The Bush administration has declared "war on porn ", have they not? They have vowed to outlaw all pornography if they can, have they not? And they haven’t even clearly defined what pornography is, right? And it hasn’t caused any outrage, here or elsewhere, as far as I know. But hey, I can just declare that the real thinking behind the war on porn is that it’s nothing but a first step in Republican plans to abolish all media. No cite on that, but I’m right.
What about the gun bans in Washington, D.C.; and San Francisco? Two heavily Democratic cities that passed outright bans on guns. Not bans on bazookas or nuclear missiles or “assault weapons.” If you’re not a cop, security guard, or in the military, you can’t own, manufacture, or sell guns in the city. If you already own a gun, you have to turn it in within 90 days of the gun ban. San Fran tried to pass a similar ban in 1982. And look who led the drive:
Diane Feinstein is still a Democrat, right?
So your statement that “No one in the Democratic Party has ever attempted to ban guns” is just plain false.
This thread is ridiculous.
Everyone knows that “Gas, grass, or ass - no one rides for free,” is a far better bumpersticker.
Do you even read your own cites?
These are bans on handguns, not all guns.
And no matter how much the gun nuts might wish it to be so, Diane Feinstein != “the Democrats.”
There is not, and never has been, any legislative movement by the Democratic part to ban all guns.
I liked that “Keep on Truckin’” one myself.
Again, be ‘right’ in your minds or win elections. The choice is yours.
You’ve raised an important clarification and I appreciate it. The SF ordinance forced citizens to turn in their handguns to the City within 90 days (they were allowed to keep any previously owned sporting rifles), but it forbade the sale, manufacture, or distribution of all firearms and ammunition. [Cite and cite]
Moreover, I fail to see how this saves ITR champion’s assertion that “No one in the Democratic party has ever attempted to ban guns.” Clearly, the ordinance banned handguns – which is itself an attempt to ban guns – and it also served as a de facto ban on rifles because people couldn’t buy ammo, which I’m sure you’ll agree is a pretty important part of a gun’s operation.
I never said Diane Feinstein is “the Democrats.” I merely pointed out that she is “a Democrat.” Thus showing that ITR champion’s assertion that “No one in the Democratic party has ever attempted to ban guns” is false.
You keep trying to move the goalposts. Once again, I never said there was a “legislative movement by the Democratic party.” I merely pointed out that ITR champion’s statement that “No one in the Democratic party has ever attempted to ban guns” is false.
If you’ve got some evidence that Diane Feinstein is not a Democrat, or that the ordinance that she spearheaded did not attempt to “ban guns,” then I’d love to hear that. Otherwise, it kind of seems like you’re talking to someone else.
Feinstein never attempted to ban all guns. She attempted to ban handguns and apparently tried to ban the sale of firearms within a limited area. Big deal.
Feinstein represents the most extreme anti-gun contingent of the Dems and even she hasn’t attempted to impose an all out ban.
I will go back to my previous statement that I can quote mine Christian conservatives in Congress for theocratic or anti-gay or anti-abortion statements or check their backgrounds for some of the stupidest or most extreme legislative initiatives taken when they were local politicians and try to use that to extropolate an alarmist, self-serving case for the GOP wanting to become the Taliban.
I think the Feinstein thing is on that level. You can show one Dem who pushes the envelope on gun control. That doesn’t mean the Dems as a party are anything to fear when it comes to gun rights.