Gods, Guns, and Guts

Great Debates
81

In response to this quote by Dianne Feinstein, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in,’ I would have done it.”

She was only talking about handguns, then she was only talking about assault rifles, then only selling ammunition. Is it not fair to infer Feinstein’s position on guns and arms in general from her positions on what she has explicitly taken a stance on?

In order to not be disingenuous, wouldn’t it be easier just to admit that Feinstein is a Democrat who desires to ban guns? I don’t think she speaks for the party in general, but there are members, prominent ones no less, who hold this position. I mean, she is probably on the fringe, just like that person who suggested that we arm teachers in classrooms, but it’s alright to admit that both sides have their own “fringe” people. It just so happens that the majority of the fringe people who want to ban guns fall on the left.

C’mon Dio, you can do it. Admit Feinstein wants to ban guns, all guns. She may not have explicitly stated as much, but based on her positions regarding other types of guns, I’d think it’s a reasonable inference.

82

Everybody’s a psychic in this thread.

Feinstein has never expressed a desire to ban all guns. I have no interest in trying to divine her secret thoughts. As long as they remain secret, they are immaterial.

83

I don’t think you can find many, if any, Democrats in Congress who would say they want to ban all guns. You also won’t find many Republicans who would say they don’t want to ban any guns. It’s all just a question of degree. Everyone in both parties wants to put restrictions on private ownership of firearms. It’s all just a question of degree.

I agree that there are fringey people in both parties but the ones who express the most overt desires to curb civil rights are on the right.

84

The Republican party is nothing to fear when it comes to Gay rights either. Nor the pro-choice movement. Nor the enviroment. :rolleyes:

85

On the contrary. The Republican party has expressed explicit desires to overturn Roe V Wade (it’s in their platform) and to permanently enshrine homophobia in the US constitution. In each case, the GOP as a party has expressed a desire to eliminate a right absolutely. There is nothing comparable for the Dems and guns (and I’m still waiting for anyone to prove that owning firearms is a civil right anyway).

86

No they haven’t.

No they haven’t.

Regards,
Shodan

87

Here’s another interesting article I found.

From the article:

Emphasis mine.

88

I knew I had these quotes laying around somewhere. Maybe the pro-gun crowd has a little basis for their “paranoia”. And yes, some of this is quite old.

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer (nationally syndicated columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996 (boldface added).

Former Sen. Bill Bradley, Al Gore’s sole rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, is considering including a ban on the sale of handguns in an aggressive gun control plan that he will announce later in his campaign, the Associated Press reports.
“I’m considering all the alternatives,” the former New Jersey lawmaker said Monday in an interview with reporter Ron Fournier. Mr. Bradley already has endorsed a “handgun card,” a photo identity card required of anybody carrying a handgun.
Greg Pierce, Where’s the Outrage?, Washington Times, May 26, 1999, at A6.

Mayor Dianne Feinstein [now U.S. Senator, D.-Cal.] moved yesterday to make San Francisco the nation’s first major city to ban handguns for personal use.
UPI, Feinstein Seeks To Ban Handguns In San Francisco, Feb. 26, 1982.

Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke signed the Communitarian Network’s The Case for Domestic Disarmament, which among other thing said:
“There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.”

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them! "
Sen. John H. Chafee (R.-R.I.), In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One
Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13A. (Uh-oh, there goes our no Republican stance…)

“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”
Evan Osnos, Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune,
Dec. 5, 1999, at C3 (quoting Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)).

“Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind.”
Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993.

Rep. William L. Clay (D-St. Louis, Mo.), said the Brady Bill is “the minimum step” that Congress should take to control handguns. “We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,” Clay said.
Robert L. Koenig, NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill, St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 8, 1993, at 1A.

Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran is proposing a wide-ranging package of laws that would make the state’s gun control regulations among the strictest in the nation and says his ultimate goal is a ban on handguns.
Daniel LeDuc, Tough Laws For Guns Proposed In Maryland; Attorney General Says
Goal Is Ban, Wash. Post, Oct. 20, 1999, at A01.

[Peter] Jennings: And the effect of the assault rifle ban in Stockton? The price went up, gun stores sold out and police say that fewer than 20 were turned in. Still, some people in Stockton argue you cannot measure the effect that way. They believe there’s value in making a statement that the implements of violence are unacceptable in our culture.

[Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass: I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have “woken up” – quote – to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not “household” weapons, is the first step.
ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991, available on
LEXIS, NEWS database, SCRIPT file.

In a high-stakes political gamble, [Democrat-Farmer-Labor Minnesota] gubernatorial candidate Tony Bouza proposed a strict gun control program Tuesday that includes the confiscation and purchase by the state of most privately owned handguns.
Robert Whereatt, Bouza Says He’d Confiscate Majority of Handguns, Minneapolis Star
Tribune, Sept. 7, 1994, at 1A. (In Minnesota, the Democratic party is known as the
Democrat-Farmer-Labor party.)

89

But remember BF, according to the stellar logic displayed in this thread, the mere fact that all of those democrats (and the republican) want to ban handguns doesn’t mean they want to “ban guns”. I guess it just means that they want to ban “some” guns. Which in turn does not make them a gun banner?

90

That’s correct. Everyone in Congress and the WH wants to ban some guns. None are trying to ban all guns.

I’m curious as to why BF quoted Charles Krauthammer, a fringe conservative columnist, as some sort of evidence as to what Democrats want. Krauthammer is not a Dem expressing a personal intention or agenda, he’s writing alarmist rhetoric about what he thinks he Dems want to do. What’s the point of quoting him?

91

Well, first of all, ITR champion didn’t say all guns. He/she just said “No one in the Democratic party has ever attempted to ban guns.” As I’ve pointed out, that’s false.

Second, Feinstein attempted to ban handguns, and the sale, manufacture, and distribution of all firearms, and the sale, manufacture, and distribution of all ammunition.

Third, as I’ve already pointed out, guns won’t work without ammunition. And when guns are used, ammunition is spent. By restricting the sale of ammunition, Feinstein, et al., effectively banned all guns by banning an integral part of their operation.

First of all, I never said anyone had attempted to impose an all out ban. I was merely responding to ITR champion’s statement that “No one in the Democratic party has ever attempted to ban guns.” Obviously, Diane Feinstein, et al., have attempted to ban guns.

Second, Feinstein, et al.,'s ban was not “all out” in name only. Suggesting that a ban on the sale, manufacture, and distribution of ammunition is not a ban on guns is similar to suggesting a ban on the sale, manufacture, and distribution of gasoline is not a ban on automobiles. Sure, people could keep the gas they’ve got in their cars right now, but what happens when that runs out? Their cars become useless.

This is irrelevant. I’m not trying to paint the Dems as extremists. I’m not trying to paint the Dems as anything. I’m just pointing out that ITR champion’s statement was patently false.

Moreover, if we’re talking about whom to fear when it comes to gun rights, I’d say that the Dems are the party to fear relative to the Reps. It’s the same with Republicans and abortions: Reps don’t actually want to ban abortions (except for some of the extremists, a la Feinstein), but they want to restrict them more than Dems do.

92

I would say that this is a pretty fair summation of the situation. My objection was to those who would assert that the Democratic party -as a party- has a far range agenda for an all-out gun ban.

93

Don’t be too sure. Only Nixon could go to China, and perhaps only the Reps can get away politically with gun restrictions. When you start to hear Republican pols losing their fear enough to say “Ya know, there really is a problem here, and perhaps we ought to look at it”, then you can take that seriously. Whenever a Dem says anything of the sort, though, it’s like Pavlov ringing a bell in front of the NRA, and it’s easy for the Reps they control not to stick their necks out. Remember what Pierce said about Bush during the 2000 campaign, for instance.

For veteran blog readers, there’s no distinction there.

94

So, who can name a free and secure state, that doesn’t have a well regulated militia?

95

Heh, just because your party is a bunch of nutbags, don’t try to ruin the Democratic party too. :smiley: I just don’t think privitization is the panacea Libertarians believe it to be.

96

Age Quod Agis:

It’s not about scoring political points, but assessing the actual threat.

If the Republican mainstream achieves its policy goals on abortion, will women who have gotten pregnant accidentally be able to get abortions? No.

If the Democrat mainstream achieves its policy goals on guns, will Americans still be ale to buy or keep rifles, pistols and shotguns? Yes.

97

No point, really. It’s where I had gotten my source for the reply to ITR earlier in this thread.

98

Are not Kennedy Schumer and Feinstein leadership in the democratic party? If so then how far is the mainstream away from them?

99

I really thought that I was gonna get ripped for the stuff I posted in post #88, but then again, maybe not. I know it’s hard for our opposition to keep a straight face when they start laughing about the “slippery slope”. We’re just a bunch of anachronistic doofus’s, ain’t we?

100

You did get ripped. You quoted a columnist as supposedly representing the Democratic party platform, and it was pointed out how silly that was.