General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy are the gun defenders here?
Here on DU I mean. This is a serious question. If I post this is a thread I will be accused of attacking some other poster.
There are several posters here who post nothing except doctrinaire defenses of the NRA positions. I know that is their right as a citizen, but why would they spend so much of their time here when their position is diametrically opposed in the Democratic platform and in complete agreement with the GOP/Trump position?
Again, not attacking any one person or their right to hold that belief, but I seriously have questions about the motivation of "No Gun Restrictions" defenders on a Democratic forum.
villager
(26,001 posts)They already have Free Republic.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Otherwise, it is hard to get around to two (2) groups and one (1) forum set aside for Guns Discussion. But we can get around to the posts.
And do.
Motley13
(3,867 posts)show the post
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)Within a dozen posts people will show up to:
1- argue that 50-150,000 lives are saved by guns every year (seriously),
2- debate the nuances of what is and isn't an assault rifle,
3- etc etc
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Links please, from today, showing someone "argue that 50-150,000 lives are saved by guns every year" or "debate the nuances of what is and isn't an assault rifle"
I sense someone just poking a stick in an ant bed.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I just looked around, and the OP is accurate.
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)And you will see both of these statements dozens of times. I don't care to wade into that swamp.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)President Obama supports the second amendment and the RKBA. The Democratic platform supports the second amendment and the individual RKBA.
Jeffersons Ghost
(15,235 posts)I created the name - Jeffersons Ghost - because the USA Patriot Act destroyed the 4th Amendment; and I will defend the Second Amendment with equal zeal.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)There are a lot around that do not seem to like the 4th amendment either
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)What is an "assault weapon" shouldn't be discussed? We shouted just mindlessly support the concept and give our money and votes to whoever supports banning them?
What about when people are factually wrong?
My dad thinks an AR-15 is fully automatic, and that gun stores are full of them. He thinks he can just waltz into a gun store and buy one.
He's factually wrong. Should I pander to him and others like him?
How about the objective fact that the rifle used in the Sandy Hook massacre was not an "assault weapon"? That's not an opinion, it's an objective fact and needs to be taken into account when discussing legislation.
Ballistic fingerprinting, microstamping, "smart guns", etc., have objective facts about them than try to get dismissed as "NRA talking points".
There's a protected group in DU for gun control, if you want to participate in their discussions.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)Mark one up for your father.
hack89
(39,171 posts)which is what the poster was saying his father thought all AR-15s were.
Separation
(1,975 posts)For a straw purchase of a firearm.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Availability was not the issue here. Care to actually dialogue, or just want to keep deflecting?
Orrex
(63,224 posts)And obviously the OP isn't going to call out specific posts or posters, because that will result in a hidden post and/or locked thread.
I've seen several gun defenders posting today, as a matter of fact. Every time someone posts any paraphrase of "guns don't kill people," that's a gun defense.
doc03
(35,364 posts)KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)OP is absolutely right that we have some vehement pro-NRA posters here who loudly shout down gun control advocates in most gun-related threads. Many never post on any other subject.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)an unarmed kid.
Bettie
(16,124 posts)they'll explain to you in nauseating detail why Zimmerman is a hero and why a kid walking home was such a danger to him, in his SUV.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)I own guns. I think that universal background checks and an assault rifle ban should be a thing. I vote democrat. When people try to guide any tragedy in the world into 'MELT THEM DOWN' then I speak to how stupid that position is.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)That's such a red herring.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)'Melt them all down!" is a direct quote.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Funny thing is pretty much all of us here that support the RKBA support reasonable restrictions. However most of the time it just ends up being insults, sexual references and penis jokes directed towards us.
Kingofalldems
(38,475 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... of any gun control measure to come down the pike, including "Melt them all down," is called a "gun humper" and an "ammosexual."
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Someone might think "you are just glad to see me."
Kingofalldems
(38,475 posts)Some sort of insult?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Separation
(1,975 posts)Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)applegrove
(118,778 posts)anybody wants to regulate guns. Then they log on a try and stop the productive discussion with all sorts of scams like "if you can't tell us the intricacies of a glock, you cannot talk about gun control" or "there is no point in arguing, give up you are losing" etc. Go to the gun control and reform group under justice and public safety if you want to be unmolested.
Didn't know that. Are you making this up?
ileus
(15,396 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)This is not to say that the RKBA is absolute. No civil liberty or civil right is absolute.
We discuss the need to balance liberty with restrictions. Its really that simple.
There are no DU members who say there should be no restrictions on firearms. We sometimes differ on which restrictions, either in place or proposed, are meaningful or desirable given the RKBA.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)restrictions on gun purchases
No - I am not going to look for it - it was a couple years back
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Usually they are just trolls who get the pizza.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)"no restrictions" relative to gun ownership.
DU-2 polls are no longer available - but here is a post where I provided a link to the poll - please note Nuclear Unicorn's acknowledgement of the 5 no-restriction responses.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022612743#post104
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)related to gun ownership.
I am producing that evidence.
I have NEVER denied DUer(s) calling for a complete ban - I have read them myself and do not deny them.
beevul
(12,194 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)what they actually ask for.
I saw several posts asking for evidence of DUers supporting NO RESTRICTIONS relative to guns, and I provided that evidence.
I also have no reason to believe there are any less no-restriction supporters than when that poll was taken.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Other than the fact that you had to go 5ish years back to find an example, you're absolutely right.
Congratulations. You actually made me break out laughing here, sitting in my chair.
That's how thin your argument is, and how transparent you are in making it.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Say we were currently talking about smokers on DU.
A post from 5 years ago, of someone who smoked, but has since quit, wouldn't really apply, unless we were talking about "the history of smokers on DU". Nobody really asked you about "The history of DUers who want no gun regulations", but that IS in fact what you're providing as evidence in an attempt to answer a question that really wasn't asking about it.
When the query is presented about these folks who want "no gun laws", "where and when" is implied, and the current tense of the original claim is bleedingly obvious.
You're trying to pretend that isn't the case, by focusing on the 'where' and pretending the 'when' does not exist.
Like I said, transparent.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)And out in the open for everyone to see, too.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Waldorf
(654 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)If you bothered doing research you could find it.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Let's see it
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That's ok, don't think it really exists anyway.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)as merely another conspiracy theory.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.
I believe that anyone thinks that all guns should be allowed is a moron and needs their head examined.
So, yes. A link is a violation of the TOS.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I did not think it was true anyway
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...if you can come up with a link. I've done it before, and am not afraid of losing my
money this time.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...prevarication.
Feel free to think of it as "faith promoting rumor" if it makes you feel better.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)On the other hand, the GOP is married to the NRA.
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)That argues for "No gun restrictions"?
Or are you simply taking "not in favor of all gun restriction" means "no gun restrictions"?
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)The 'no sensible gun restrictions' crowd.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Posts that will pick the nuance of one word and argue that while ignoring the clear intention of the discussion, which was:
Why are some posters on DU only interested in arguing against sensible gun restrictions?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Because we all know that sensible = laws I support.
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)Avoid the larger issue, argue an esoteric point.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 17, 2016, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Nearly every gun owner here supports gun control. But there are many proposals that are either ineffective or unconstitutional that we object to. Which always twisted to mean we oppose "sensible" gun control when it really means we disagree with some of your ideas.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)so that makes it the norm everywhere.
I know a lot of gun owners in Arizona that think gun control is a communist plot to take over the country and leave the people defenseless. I guess, because in my part of the world, since that is the norm, I can completely dismiss your opinion.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I am talking about gun owners on DU.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)The definition of "sensible" gun control is the point. It's precisely the point.
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)Is completely change what you said.
So you are really saying your blankets absolute statement was supposed to be specific and limited to sensible restrictions and it is the reader's fault if they did not get that.
If you meant why do some posters argue against sensible regulation why didn't you say that instead of they argue for no gun restriction?
Words have meaning and if you do not properly articulate your position whose fault is it?
Demonaut
(8,926 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Bans on cosmetic features?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I live in the UK, and I think we've got gun control about right here.
But I think that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow the formulation of civilian militias capable of defeating an invading national army; I think that the interpretation the FFs intended was probably that any citizen should be allowed to own any kind of weapon, without any form of state restriction whatsoever.
If you want to drive around in a tank or carry a bazooka, great, you're fulfilling your civic duty of discouraging us British from reinvading! And that's clearly more important that reducing the number of firearm fatalities.
hunter
(38,326 posts)When slaves rebelled, when Indians held their ground, when workers went on strike, the masters of this nation could count on the white guys with guns to take care of things.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Didn't happen..don't remember the role civilian firearms played or where many of those arms came from....such short memories...it really is sad.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Are you saying that the founding fathers knew about WWII? Because my argument is about their intent in writing the second amendment.
beergood
(470 posts)hes refering to the time we Americans gave firearms to the UK and other EU allies during ww2. if im correct the NRA helped ditrubute firearms in europe.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)in the US lawfully owning guns.
Why were the British civilians so gun deficient?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Committee_for_the_Defense_of_British_Homes
The American Committee for the Defense of British Homes was an American organization during World War II that donated weapons to British citizens for defense from a possible German invasion.[1] after the 1937 Firearms Act.[2]
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)They gathered them up and dumped them into the North sea.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)And here's where differences in perspective become huge. I wouldn't call it "about right" when your Olympic target shooting competitors have to travel outside the country to practice. I would call it excessive.
Since then, anyone wanting to practice had to do so on the Continent or at least in Northern Ireland, where the laws are looser. There were no exceptions: an up-and-comer like Geikie and a veteran like Mick Gault, who was awarded the Order of the British Empire as one of the most successful British competitors of any sport, both kept their guns in Switzerland and traveled there on weekends to practice.
It was the end of our sport for a while, said Margaret Thomas, an orthodontist and former Olympian. She quit shooting pistols after the ban, considering it too much trouble. Now she is Geikies coach.
--http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/sports/olympics/handgun-ban-after-1996-mass-shooting-hampers-british-olympian-georgina-geikie.html?_r=0
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I have a friend who used to do target shooting, and I agree that it's a shame that she had to quit, but I don't think it's 1 person in 10,000's life per year's worth of a shame
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)I have a friend who used to do target shooting, and I agree that it's a shame that she had to quit, but I don't think it's 1 person in 10,000's life per year's worth of a shame
So is it your contention that allowing Olympic competitors to train with their target pistols in the UK would cost thousands of lives? That's absolutely absurd.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Spot on.
The 2nd was meant to ensure the existence of the state militias, made from the body of the people, and require them to be well armed and well trained.
'Keep and bear arms' refers to personal arms, effective and uniform, that the people would supply themselves and keep in their homes at the ready for militia duty....repeal invasions, insurrections, enforce the laws.
Any less capable would provide a pretext for that bane of liberty - a large standing army.
The issue in doubt comes about because obviously we, the people no longer feel the constitutional well-regulated militias are the best security - we have the NG and a huge MIC.
So what to do when that primary intent is a bit obsolete, & the scope of the security it provides is so often questionable.
Laurian
(2,593 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)cannot be classified as a "mass shooting" - this was just a couple weeks back
bizarro
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)which was a response to post 33
which was a response to post 27
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)I was told that the example I provided did not count because the victims were family members
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)thank goodness
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)In his defense, there are a lot of hunters in Vermont. But opposition to gun control is not an exclusively Republican thing.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I live in Montana, and a lot of people like to hunt and fish. Both of my chemistry lab partners were liberal hunters, so they would talk about their rifles sometimes. Pretty common in my mountain, college town.
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)They are opposed to mass murder with weapons that should be restricted to military and very limited police uses.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)and in arguments, many people will say "guns" instead of "semi-automatic rifles," and I believe this causes a lot of miscommunication. I think the more specific a person is the less "ammo" they give to their opponents. (please excuse the pun)
In my opinion, those who are passionate about any kind of gun regulation would serve their arguments well if they learned more about the guns they want regulated, and figured out that there is no gun culture, but rather many gun cultures.
Additionally, clearly stating how a proposed regulation would decrease gun violence would also be a huge plus.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)don't want to learn the difference between "clip" and "magazine". Both the same in their minds. Words do count.
or the difference between "assault weapon" and "assault rifle". Both the same in their minds. Words do count.
or define a barrel shroud as "a thing that goes up". Forget it, this one makes my head spin.
When one is unwilling to learn WHAT they want to regulate, it results in unenforceable regulations, which result in more regulations etc. etc. ad nauseum.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The military wouldn't use the rifles in question.
Why?
Because they aren't actually military rifles.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)on city streets, closets full of non-hunting rifles and pistols, stock piles of ammo, Membership in white wing NRA, etc.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Even the NRA supports some regulation, such as prisoners not having guns, so what are people supposed to work with in the post?When talking to the masses, cloudy arguments work fairly well, but clear arguments work better on message boards, in my opinion.
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)I guess that proves the NRA is reasonable if they oppose gun ownership for people in prison.
Again, proving the point that there are some who will always deflect the discussion with some minor, meaningless point.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)What I was trying to say is the OP is cloudy. I think direct language is more persuasive on message boards than round about language.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)In fact, it's ludicrous to even include it in the "restriction" category.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Forbidding prisoners from having guns is a restriction, regardless of anyone's feelings about the restriction.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)There's no more American and iconic picture of Malcom X than this...
I suggest you look over the role guns played in the civil rights movement.
"Although he was denied a concealed carry permit, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had what his adviser Glenn E. Smiley described as a veritable "arsenal" at home."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/do-black-people-have-equal-gun-rights.html?_r=1
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Someone could get shot, accidentally (including him), that way.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Urbanites are the only true Dems....they fail to realize that Dems could never win a national election without rural Dems....a lot of rural dems have left the party because of this disregard for their issues...
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Cities like Jacksonville, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix & Fort Worth -- to name a few -- are not crammed with hep cat ex-patriots from Greenwich, the Castro, or Harvard Square. They are largely filled with people a generation or two off the land, often within the parent states. A population somewhat abandoned by the Democratic Party.
hack89
(39,171 posts)marriage equality , unions, affirmative action?
There many other reasons to be a Democrat besides gun control. It is not a litmus test like some of the other issues because so many Dems own gun.
We also like to piss off people like you.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 06:52 PM - Edit history (1)
that you can't comment on a particular story if you can't identify the correct make and model of a particular weapon that was used, the proper name for the subtype of the firearm that said the weapon is commonly associated with and the caliber of ammunition that it takes.
They're just fucking trolls.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)You've got to be kidding me...
I voted leave..
Unfortunately, TPTB have no selection to check that says, "DUMB ALERT."
Beartracks
(12,821 posts)==============
drray23
(7,637 posts)You get this choice if you say it was absolutely not a rule violation.
egduj
(805 posts)randr
(12,414 posts)There are many DUers who own guns and do not subscribe to the extremity of the NRA.
Most gun owners are in favor of reforms to make guns safer and harder to get by the obviously unqualified.
The way the NRA has manipulated laws across our Nation should be considered treasonous. They have allowed fanatical anti American groups to arm themselves to the teeth, putting all citizens and law enforcement at risk.
NashuaDW
(90 posts)We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Hillary's platform:
1. Fight for comprehensive background checks:
She will advocate for comprehensive federal background check legislation.
She will close the Charleston loophole, which allows any gun sale to proceed if a background check is not completed within three days.
2. Hold dealers and manufacturers fully accountable if they endanger Americans:
She will repeal the gun industrys unique immunity protection due to lobbying by the NRA.
She will revoke the licenses of bad dealers, such as those that knowingly supply guns to straw purchasers and traffickers.
3. Keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals and the severely mentally ill.
Clinton has said If you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun, period. She will insist on comprehensive background checks prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns.
She will support legislation to prohibit all domestic abusers and individuals suffering from severe mental illnesses from buying and possessing guns.
She will make straw purchasing a federal crime.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/04/14/hillary-clinton-will-fight-for-common-sense-solutions-to-reduce-gun-violence/
beevul
(12,194 posts)Big giant strawman.
There are no "No gun restrictions" defenders here.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Mostly though, anti-gun trolls are blocked instead of banned, and its for things like accusing other DUers of being KKK and the like (seems they don't know how to behave).
Nancyswidower
(182 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Nancyswidower
(182 posts)I won't suggest suspending Constitutional rights by edict either
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Nothing, so you change the subject
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)And are so busy obsessing over their guns that they completely missed it.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)The OP supports some kind of anti democratic litmus test...
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Admit to owning firearms. The Dem party platform states that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, and that position is completely consistent with the positions of both President Obama and Hillary Clinton (and Bernie Sanders). And I haven't seen any Dem on here who advocates "no gun restrictions," and I've seen very few opposed to "sensible" gun control laws, whatever that might mean. For example, most support universal background checks, even though they won't really make any difference. Some support an "assault weapons" ban, even though Obama administration officials have admitted that such a ban would have no impact on firearm violence (The Guardian had an article a couple weeks ago that discussed this fact). I support an individual right to keep and bear arms and I don't think that "gunz" are the reason criminals or terrorists act the way they do, just like I don't think trucks or planes caused the Nice attack or 9/11.
I myself have voted Dem since I first voted, for Dukakis in 1988. I've never voted for a Republican at any level. When I was in the Air Force I had an officer ask me to move my car behind the building where we worked because the visiting general might not like my Clinton/Gore sticker. In other words, I feel like my Dem credentials are pretty good, and the idea that progressives on here who support the Second Amendment aren't "real" Democrats is not only offensive but flatly wrong. What other litmus tests are we going to impose on DU members?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)But believe the 2nd amendment is as valid as the others.
With reasonable restrictions of course.
Universal background check
Limited magazine size
Severe, really, really severe penalties for felons having guns. This is the best route to limiting gun violence. Especially if we let drug offenders out of prison and stop jailing new ones.
But I am against an 'assault weapons' ban. Do not own one and would not mind a ban, but I think it hurts us politically and more important I do not think it would reduce gun violence at all. Basically you would have to ban any semi automatic with a detachable magazine.
But it is not a make or break issue for me like it is for the NRA crowd.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)1939
(1,683 posts)1. Any felony conviction or any conviction of a misdemeanor involving violence as an adult or as a minor and you permanently lose your individual civil right to keep and bear arms.
2. Sales with stiff background checks and limited to 21 and over (except 16 and over can purchase .22 caliber plinking rifles).
3. Draconian prison terms for possessing a weapon if forbidden by 1. above.
4. Inter-generational family transfers of firearms must be processed through a licensed gun dealer.
5. Any transfer of ownership of a firearm must take place through a licensed gun dealer (costs about $25)
6. I could go with a 20 round max magazine for a rifle and a 15 round max for a pistol.
7. Limitations on minimum barrel length for rifles and shotguns.
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)There was a time when Democrats were pretty broadly anti gun. Then something happened. The party wanted to be more inclusive, so they threw out a planks in their malleable platform. Anti gun was one of those planks. We had to accept hunters and other responsible gun owners. So the camel's nose was allowed inside the tent.
Now the tent smells like camel shit.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Yes it did. It was losing elections especially control of Congress in 1994.
hack89
(39,171 posts)just how anti-gun was the Democratic party in the past?
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)The Democratic platform didn't even mention guns or firearms from 1960, 1964, and 1968.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29602
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29603
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29604
Then came the evil Saturday Night Special. It occupied the boogieman role the way AR-15 rifles do now.
Then in 1972 we see the mentions of handguns -- Saturday Night Specials in particular. These were defined as cheap handguns with no "sporting purpose" --- whatever the fuck that means.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29605
We see similar language in 1976
Furthermore, since people and not guns commit crimes, we support mandatory sentencing for individuals convicted of committing a felony with a gun.
The Democratic Party, however, affirms the right of sportsmen to possess guns for purely hunting and target-shooting purposes.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29606
In 1980 the sporting purpose becomes front and center, but the issue is still handguns:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29607
In 1984, the party realized singling out Saturday Night Specials was idiotic so that focused their energies on snub-nosed revolvers:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29608
In 1988 - no mention of guns
In 1992, evil handguns and assault weapons" were back.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29610
In 1996, the platform heralded the 1994 AWB even as it acknowledged that we lost congress due, in part, to pro-AWB votes.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29611
In 2000, the platform heralded the Brady Bill and took a lot of credit for the reduced crime of 2000:
Here are the results of that strategy: serious crime is down seven years in a row, to its lowest level in a quarter-century. Violent crime is down by 24 percent. The murder rate is down to levels unseen since the mid-1960's. The number of juveniles committing homicides with guns is down by nearly 60 percent.
.
.
.
A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners. The Columbine tragedy struck America's heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29612
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)This has caused some Democrats to become convinced that it's political suicide to oppose them.
This leads to photo ops of Democrats in camo wielding hunting rifles as part of their losing campaign.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)There are far more members on DU who believe in total bans (which is contradictory to Democratic Party planks).
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I have seen dozens of confiscate and melt then down posters.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)And Skinner likes money.
CanonRay
(14,113 posts)are gun humpers
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)And not everyone identifies themselves politically based SOLELY on the gun issue.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Response to baldguy (Reply #57)
friendly_iconoclast This message was self-deleted by its author.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...after previously denouncing them?
Is that the sort of fascist supporters you mean?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And instead advocate for gunz, gunz & more gunz as the one and only solution to every problem.
Most rational people (the majority) think the terrorist watch list should be used to go after actual terrorists - such as the aforementioned - rather than the fascist RW fantasy of them, as it does now.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)25. People are harassed, investigated & arrested for their political beliefs.
Held anonymously without charge, trial, or communication with the outside world.
The President's press secretary says that people should watch what they say, or else - and the press is too afraid to say anything.
People are prevented from traveling freely because they are on a gov't list.
During his most recent inauguration, Bush faced the largest number of protesters at such an event in 35 years. People were herded into cages, tear gassed en masse, and arrested for the crime of exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
What do you think?
What do I think? I think you've learned to love Big Brother.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...instead of people you agree with.
Situational ethics in its purest ray serene.
Jopin Klobe
(779 posts)... it's what they're paid to do ...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)recentevents
(93 posts)The founding fathers also did not intend for us to have a 'standing army'. That is why it has to be re-approved by congress every two years. Without a standing army, there was a need for citizen militias to deal with the original inhabitants and groups both inside and outside of our borders from taking over. And most of the country was wilderness without stores or civilization. Hence the need to allow citizens to 'bear arms'. The arms in use when the document was written were swords and muzzle loaders, not semi automatic weapons.
If a mass shooter had rushed in a tavern in the 1700's and started killing people, after the first shot, or two if they carried a pistol as well as a long rifle, the crowd would have taken care of him during the 45 seconds or so it took to reload his weapon.
I don't think they intended for the citizens to have weapons that could kill 50 people before reloading. There are those that believe differently.
I personally am disgusted by what is going on in this country. We have more violent deaths than anywhere other than a war zone. It isn't because we don't lock up the bad guys, we put more people in prison than any other country. It isn't because we aren't 'Christian'. We have more self identified 'Christians' than any other country. It isn't because we don't have a military to defend our country, we spend more than the next 10 countries combined on defense, more than 50% of our budget is spent on current military and related costs.
Is it because we just suck as a nation?
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)for Congress to study the problem.
You raise some good points.
Welcome to DU.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Most cities seem quite capable of listing the .5% of people responsible for 70-80% of the gun violence.
Chicago, Richmond CA, Newark, Albany, Cincinnati KNOW who those people are.
And they are aware of remedies and programs that work.
As Chicago says:
We are targeting the correct individuals, Mr. Johnson said. We just need our judicial partners and our state legislators to hold these people accountable.
The cities are catching on:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/14/forget-new-gun-laws-heres-what-could-really-keep-people-from-shooting-each-other/
drray23
(7,637 posts)Being a democrat and a gun owner is one thing. Being on du solely to talk about guns and parrot the nra is altogether strange. Some if these posters only are concerned about gun discussions nothing else. I question their true beliefs.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Many pro-2A AND anti 2A posters share the same characteristic: Most popular group GCRKBA. Otherwise, it's GD.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Has as his favorite group RKBA
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Doodley
(9,124 posts)Let's see how well that would go!
Waldorf
(654 posts)Amendment.
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)The question concerns those who hang out here but post almost exclusively in opposition to almost all restrictions on guns.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Thats essentially nobody on DU.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)for that bull**** statement
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)every RKBA poster that I know on DU is for reasonable restrictions. Most are against just a few like registration, cosmetic bans and unreasonable magazine size limits.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)has a less than hostile take on guns, where should they go? Should they simply declare themselves a conservative republican and vote that way over that one issue?
I'd also say that most liberal gun supporters support some gun control, and do not want the same wild west type situation the republicans push for.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Then you support the right of Americans to own guns as spelled out in the recent supreme court interpretation of the 2nd amendment. With some relatively minor restrictions.
If you do not support the right of Americans to own guns, you are actually out of step with the Democratic Party.
Of course all opinions on the issue are welcome on this site and in the party. But we need to realize that the right to own guns is strongly supported by our party in it's guiding document.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)To support ALL civil liberties, not just the ones you like.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,641 posts)I hate to be the one to break it to you, but nearly as many Democrats as Republicans own firearms. Sure, if a pol introduces legislation it'll be a Democrat, but widespread ownership on both sides of the political fence assures little will be done.
For the record, I don't bash anyone who petitions for common sense regulation. I think we need more restriction, not less. Having said that, those who call for outright bans reside in a very tight bubble.
Famed lefties from Rachel Maddow to Bill Maher and Joe Biden to Ted Strickland all have multiple firearms and don't plan to melt them into slag to satisfy a small minority.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)"gun humping cowards" that sounds like a group attack and should be hidden.
Or better yet, why don't you name a few and stand by your words
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Married to a (Republican) Gun Owner for 42 years. He has 2nd Amendment Rights? Well, so DO I.
Going back to when we had children. His unloaded guns had to be locked up at all times in combination safe, which was MY choice to not know it. If the kids did not want to "know gun safety" or go shooting (they didn't) with him, then leave them ALONE. They can change their minds when they become adults. They didn't.
Children grown up and gone? Same house rules apply since I am still living in this household. No loaded guns, not locked up, or lying around. I do not wish to be around them. You have a CCW? Fine carry it all you want ALONE. I will not accompany you if you are carrying.
This compromise has worked for us. He has his 2nd Amendment Rights to own guns, yet I have MY 2nd Amendment Rights to NOT.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Thankfully it is all of 5 people, the rest of us not so much.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Why do you pretend that fantasy is reality?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Typical, you are all talk and no facts. Obama coming for your guns? The police? Pullleeeze go bother someone else with your made up fantasy.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)In the meantime, I'll write the NRA, demanding my condo in Muskrat, Louisiana. This thread was hard work!
Rex
(65,616 posts)Have fun living in your fantasy world, the rest of us are going to live in the real world. I could care less what you do, you cannot deal with reality so it is a waste of time.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Like I said, talking to a person that lives in a delusion is a waste of time so goodluck with your paranoia.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Festivito
(13,452 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)or a six year old's right to live in Newtown, or movie goers in Colorado, or gay club goers in Orlando, etc.
People are replaceable. . .guns are not.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Let's kick some serious ass! Blah, blah...
They haven't yet figured out that they'd be up against drones, robots and satellites. Their hardware is like popguns compared to what the evil "gummint" could bring to bear against them. Another wet dream evaporates into ether.
Stinky The Clown
(67,818 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)Botany
(70,581 posts).... ignore. I think some are paid trolls too.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I never get paid
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Peeing all over themselves over Obama coming for their guuuunnnsss! How embarrassing for them!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)As the OP was about DU members
Calculating
(2,957 posts)My whole family is filled with Democrats and we own guns. I even own some evil "assault weapons". Doesn't mean I support Trump though.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)They are typical outnumbered in all but a few coastal states, but here lately they have gotten emotional, very bold...And loud...
Not too worry, it is only an election year, what do we have too loose?!?
needledriver
(836 posts)That's the trouble with those pesky rights. We have the right to do stuff you don't agree with. You have the right to speak about it. We have the right to speak back. We have the right to keep and bear arms. So do you. You don't have to if you don't want to BUT you do not have the right to prevent me from exercising my right to keep and bear arms, just like I don't have the right to prevent you from speaking out about it.
I may not agree with what you say but I will absolutely defend your right to say it.
Will you defend my rights as well?
Calculating
(2,957 posts)ALL of the rights are important. Even the ones we don't personally agree with. I might not agree with extreme anti-gun views, but I would defend their right to share those views every time.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)It's been made very clear that an inch offered will be reciprocated with an attempt to take a mile (or 12).
So no compromise and the pro 2nd crowd won't give an inch.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)They always say after every minor victory..."Its a good first step"...
So screw it....Now I actively work to relax many restrictions.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)If not, then continue being a liberal minded person and don't blame all gun owners for the idiots in their group.
It isn't about defending 'gun nuts' it is about defending rights some of us enjoy having (and no, I don't currently own a gun).
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)As often pointed out, Swiss citizens are mandated by law to retain at home assaukt rifles as part of their Reserve duty. There is a very low gun crime rate in Switzerland.
So the gun crime rate in the US has to reflect other factors than gun ownership.
While the Second Amendement does provide the kind of security of a well armed reserve militia sought out by the Swiss legislator.
It would be interesting to trace the history of the meme that has taken hold over time that being anti-guns would be a progressive credential.
TroyJackson
(86 posts)not sure if we have been reading the same forum!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)LAGC
(5,330 posts)All ten of those beautiful amendments that make up our Bill of Rights.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)And gun ownership happens to be a constitutionally protected civil right.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)MLK, James Meredith, John Lewis, Harvey Milk, etc.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yes, gun ownership is a constitutionally protected civil right, and I detest anti-gunners who try to falsely attribute to me sentiments I haven't expressed. From Cornell University Law School:
A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights
So yeah, they ARE a civil right.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)examples. Jeeez.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I know its difficult for you, but I'll walk you through it:
A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places.
See that first sentence? "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege." McDonald and Heller were examples of it being enforced.
Also, it mentions freedom of speech, press, and assembly - also known as the first amendment. If the first amendment protects a civil right, so then does amendment 2, 3,4,5, and so on.
So yes, hoyt, gun ownership is a constitutionally protected civil right.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Gunners are not being discriminated against or persecuted. Although, people do ridicule them at times.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Completely consistent with the preamble to the bill of rights.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Without a lot of rural Democrats Hillary cannot win in November.
That is one response...the larger issue is the complete lack of understanding of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Protecting civil rights and civil liberties is among the most liberal/progressivedemocratic/Democratic of positions...liberal interpretation of all civil rights and liberties is liberal...conservative interpretation is conservative.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)they kill people in urban areas, etc. Guns are not a "civil right," certainly not to the extent of civil rights for minorities. A gun to hunt and maybe a gun for self-defense AT HOME, is not a necessarily a bad thing. Anything more is pushing the envelope and taking advantage of the intent of the Constitution as misinterpreted by gun fanciers.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Most Democrats understand this very simple concept.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)going to town, is not keeping them in your closet. Practicing militia maneuvers is not either.
beergood
(470 posts)as long as it remains hidden, you don't want to see it or hear about it. correct?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)defense if they are that paranoid. Other than that, the person is abusing guns to the detriment of society.
Truthfully, I'd rather folks have to rent guns for hunting, but I think one or two bolt, lever, shotgun, or pistol guns would satisfy any interpretation of the overly worshipped 2nd Amendment. I'd support limitation on ammunition and other restrictions too.
I also think anyone who whines about such restrictions should be evaluated by a medical doctor.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)(though I also have a couple nice collectable M1's, semis but certainly not assault weapons)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)efficiently. Maybe not as quickly as full-autos, but fully automatic rifles are seldom used on that setting.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)EX500rider
(10,856 posts)SheriffBob
(552 posts)Nuclear bullets
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)One shot, and have a death wish as the blast will kill you before you can run.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)even the Democrats. MANY hunt. Many enjoy shooting shorts like skeet/trap or target shooting.
I realize a lot of urban democrats looks down on those activities, but there ya go.
FYI, I am not a hunter, but I do enjoy restoring and shooting antique guns and shooting the occasional modern gun. I have never fired (or even deliberately pointed) a gun at anything living, and hope to never have to.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)For those concerned about such things, a semi-auto is the best weapon for self-defense, so without a Constitutional Amendment, that is unlikely to pass Constitutional muster.
But as we've argued before, I'l, take this more seriously when folks are concerned about sources of death and injury that are much more significant than guns.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)lillypaddle
(9,581 posts)Thanks. Wonder why they are allowed?
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Are you going to purge the ACLU next?
hack89
(39,171 posts)and that there are many Dems that own guns?
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)I sometimes lurk on a very conservative forums. DU is their favorite place for sending trolls. This site has developed a reputation for being quick to find them and ban them, so some of the RW trolls make a few progressive sounding posts to blend in better but then regurgitate the RW and NRA talking points in every gun thread.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1135093_index.html
maser
(7 posts)I don't think they are standing in line to troll here.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)The NRA way, that is. I think they're seriously paranoid if they believe expanded background checks will result in confiscations, but I guess the 1st Amendment protects their right t paranoia.
Doodley
(9,124 posts)You can't expect all Democrats to share all the same opinions.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they have plenty of guns.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)bighart
(1,565 posts)and every right and responsibility enumerated within it.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)About a certain poster. This isn't to beat up n the jury, with every post you throw the dice and take your chances. Out of thousands of posts it was the first one I had go against me.
But I was wondering the same thing.
G_j
(40,370 posts)that should say a lot...
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)LP2K12
(885 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)In both cases, it took people with guns to stop terrorists to kill people.
and the terrorists didn't need guns. A truck. An axe.
Guns can be a very useful defensive tool.
anoNY42
(670 posts)I go to Townhall.com sometimes. A combination of masochism and a desire to see how the other side lives...
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)There are more (D) that have guns than you realize. Deal with it.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Jeffersons Ghost
(15,235 posts)After I saw this O.P. remain in General Discussion for so long and obtain this many recommendations, I thought the rules of Democratic Underground had changed.