What needs to happen is for Democrats to accept that gun control, as a form of crime control is a fallacy. Many hunters on another board I frequent hated Bush with a passion, but could not vote for Kerry based on their perceived notions his anti-gun stance. They voted third party, or did not vote for president at all.
I will have to commend those that call us dickless wonders. I cannot think of a better way to get people on your side than to attempt to insult them. For the record, I am pro gun, pro gay marraige, and I don’t like GW Bush much either. For me to be called a dickless wonder by a no spine piece of crap on the internet doesn’t exactly make me hope for better days for Democrats. I would call those with a nonsensical fear of guns the true dickless wonders.
I can pretty much speak for myself on what I do or do not understand. This is what you BELIEVE I do not understand. Let me ask you this. Where did you learn about this excess? What is your source? the media. The crux issue here is was the media coopted by the Republican party? If my belief is true, then your belief about ‘liberal excess’ may have a dubious origin based on the bias of the source.
If my premise is true, and the media is conservative (Republican, moreover), then all conclusions stemming from our media are suspect. That is what I understand. I’ll give credance to your point, if you can convince me that the media have not influenced what we are thinking here today in a conservative manner.
The whole damn country was in serious trouble by the late 1970’s, and it didn’t take any newspapers or TV news crews for people to identify the culprits. The only people in power during the stretch 1965-1980 were liberal Democrats in Congress and liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans in the White House.
The election of a conservative president and a Republican Senate in 1980 reversed this trend to a degree. Inflation was curbed. Interest rates were lowered. A badly needed military buildup began, and a strong foreign policy was articulated by the administration.
Things got better in the United States. At the same time, in similar ways to today, liberal elites were royally pissed off. They called the president a buffoon and a warmonger, while the American public studied him and decided he was neither.
Now, guestforever, what you’re implying is that neither of us is arguing from objective fact. You seem to think we both have little alternate realities set up for ourselves, backed up be the books we read, and those we ignore.
20 percent interest rates sting badly, though. So does double digit inflation. So does the news of a failed rescue attempt in the Iranian desert, that killed several servicemen and left the hostages in the Ayatollah’s hands. All of this has an interesting way of shaking people back to reality.
This reality hit the liberals pretty hard. In their next attempt to gain power, the American public repudiated them in one of the worst electoral losses in history. Mondale came close in that race to losing his home state.
Liberals really haven’t been the same since. For one thing, they have to hide their liberalism to win national elections. This takes the form, say, of throwing on camo and going hunting.
Um… You do realise that’s the second time you’ve called me a ‘dickless wonder’, right?
This is exactly what many people here have been talking about. As I said in the OP, I believe in many of the things the Democratic Party stands for – except gun control. I was a ‘single issue gun voter’ once, but now I understand that there are other problems that are more pressing. But there are people like XJohn for whom gun control is the deciding issue. If the Democrats call us (people like me, who support Liberal ideals but not gun control; and people like XJohn, for whom gun control is the deciding criterion) ‘dickless wonders’ or some such, then they are alienating people who would probably vote for them.
I voted for Kerry. I will continue to vote for Democrats in order to bring about social change; but other people who would vote for a Democrat – and help to bring about health care reforms, etc. – will continue to vote Republican just on this one issue.
If I were anti-gun, then I would still favour dropping the issue in order to bring the other changes that are more important.
Permitting the citizenry to own (and carry) guns is in historical American terms a prototypically liberal ideal. The right to bear arms was premised on the need for the people to be able and equipped to ensure their security, and to protect themselves from a government that failed to provide them with freedom and safety.
More than 50% of American households possess guns, and only a minority of citizens wish to see citizens denied the right to own weapons. Clearly, a majority of those who vote Democrat in the USA do not wish to see citizens denied the right to own guns.
It is as well that the DP drop the matter from their programme altogether, when the majority of their supporters feel passionately about the need to uphold constitutional rights.
True, but the parties have evolved over time. It used to be that the Democrats were the ones calling for State’s Rights, and the Republicans wanted a strong Federal government. Now it seems the positions have been reversed.
And there has been a similar evolution over the meaning - and political colouring - of the word ‘liberal’; and indeed of its capitalised form ‘Liberal’.
I haven’t called any specific perseon a dickless wonder. But I wanna make it clear: I don’t like the gun lobby. I don’t care for their viewpoints. I TOLERATE them. Toleration means putting up with people you don’t like, not embracing people you don’t like. We need to get this stuff clear. I tolerate a lot of stuff I don’t like, because I understand the value of tolerance. Doesn’t mean I LIKE it, and I’m not going to PRETEND I like it.
I can only speak for myself. If I were a gun owner and someone wanted me to periodically demonstrate basic firearm competency, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
How low do pyrotechnic accidents have to be before we do away with licenses for those?
If you wanted me to periodically demonstrate basic firearm compentancy to carry in public or an understanding of hunter safety that’d be fine. I don’t expect to have to demonstrate my ability to exercise a right in the privacy of my own home though.
Excellent, a question answered with a question. Really, what’s your answer? The rate of accidental firearm deaths among children is pretty darn low being around 120 in 1998 and the total accidental deaths were around 900 when you add adults to the number. You were the one who brought up the example of the 8 year olds shooting themselves. How is licensing going to prevent these accidental deaths and why go through all the trouble for a problem that barely exist at all? In the end, for most people it comes down to crime. Accidents, particularly those involving children, are just used to get the sympathy vote.
Earlier someone said that the NRA blocks all “sane” gun control efforts. Automatically the implication is that those who oppose these laws are irrational. Rhetoric like that just puts the other side in a defensive mode and real dialogue cannot occur. (Certainly the gun crowd has their rhetoric as well.) There are plenty of sane gun laws already on the books and I think we’ve compromised plenty over the past 30 years or so. As a gun owner I want to know what I gain my further compromising? I don’t think crime, accidents, or suicides with firearms will decrease and it simply makes it easier to pass further gun restrictions down the road.
I won’t vote on gun control alone but it does carry considerate weight. I know I’d be more willing to vote for a democratic candidate if they were more friendly towards gun owners. I don’t know if that’d apply to others though.
I did vote for a Democratic candidate last week due to his Second Amendment support. Congressman Boswell (D) was rated an A from the NRA. Imagine that a Democrat receiving an A rating form the NRA. I thought that NRA only supported Republicans though? Heck, they gave the guy running against him and A also, but endorsed Boswell the DEMOCRAT because of his tenure and pull in the US House.
I mentioned this before. It may seem that the NRA only endorses Republicans. This is because Republicans are far more likely to endorse gun rights.
They endorse lots of Democrats, though, especially at the state level. These Democrats often do well, even if their opponent is also pro-gun. It’s one issue the Republicans can’t use against them.
Pro Gun Dems can win. Pro Gun Pubbies can win. Anti-Gun Dems can win. Anti-Gun Pubbies can win. Some people are really swayed in favor of a candidate endorsed by the NRA, while I personally would not vote for an NRA member all other things being equal. Let’s say 10% of the populace cannot vote for an anti-gun candidate. All that means is that the anti-gun candidate needs to pull about 55.6% of the voters indifferent to or in favor of gun control. Not insurmountable. Of course, the higher the percentage of the population that votes only by the gun issue, the higher the percentage of other voters you need to pull in order to win.
What’s needed is a little reason. My personal feelings:
If you want a gun to hunt, knock yourself out. If you want something that can fell a moose at 100 yards (not being a hunter, I don’t know if that’s an easy shot or not), then more power to you. If you want something that can fell 100 moose in 10 seconds, that’s where I start to have a problem. In your hands it might pose me no hazard, but I don’t want them in the wrong hands. If you sleep better with a pistol on your nightstand, hey be my guest. If you think you need a silencer- I don’t think so. All I want is for the police who are protecting me and my family not to be totally outgunned by gangs or nuts or whatever. I also wouldn’t want a repeat of Columbine in my kid’s school with Uzis and AK47s. If we can come up with some reasonable definitions of what is appropriate for individuals to own for hunting or self protection, and what is more proper to leave to military use that would be great. What the NRA and its followers seem to assume is that everybody who wants some controls has in their agenda the banning of all guns. It’s not in my case. I don’t hunt, but I know people that do. If your hunting makes it less likely for me to hit a deer with my car, great. You have your fun and I’ll drive safer.
It’s widely thought that favoring gun controls is political suicide. If you want to ban guns, perhaps it is. But I think there’s room in both the Republican and Democratic tents for discussion of reasonable controls that can please both the gun enthusiast and those that worry about public safety issues.
Along the lines BobLibDem noted, one of the most vocal and consistent groups in favoring gun control is the cops, because they don’t want to get shot up by heavily armed criminals. This to my mind is one of the, if not the, strongest arguments for gun control. I dont’ want our cops being targets. The studied indifference of the NRA and gun advocates on this issue is their greatest weakness. Maybe the number of kids killed by play9ing with guns is small, but cops get shot by criminals quite often.
The problem you will find, and was mentioned earlier, is that I am a reasonable person. I feel that reasonable controls ARE in place. I am not alone on this issue. The dividing line HAS been placed on what weapons are better left to the military. The problem is that YOU don’t like where that line has been drawn.
Gun onwers have compromised for the last 30 or so years and we have gained nothing! If your cops are outgunned, then they need to buy updated weapons. There is no reason for cops to be outgunned by civilian owned weaponry. Law enforcement has access to weapons that most civilians, and certainly those who would commit crimes do not have access to. The lines have been drawn at the functionality of weapons, which is correct. Everything beyond that is asthetics.