Ever notice how the Brady Campaign has stopped talking about "gun control?"
It seems like whenever anyone affiliated with the Bradys speaks up now, the new meme is "gun violence prevention."
Not that much of a stretch, honestly, seeing that the full name of their organization is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, but when you actually dig down and see how they actually propose to prevent gun violence, you begin to see a lot of the old familiar chestnuts that are soundly being rebuffed by the American people, not to mention the recent Heller and McDonald decisions by the Supreme Court.
And that tells me that the Brady Campaign is aware that it has an image problem. They're seen as the folks who want to confiscate any firearm aside from squirrel rifles and single-load shotguns. Recent activity by the Brady Campaign, including their well-publicized (but essentially fruitless) campaign to get Starbucks Coffee to ban concealed handguns from their establishments has increased their media visibility and given them some much-needed income, but they still have to fight the perception that they want to set fire to the Second Amendment and throw the burning parchment at the feet of the Statue of Liberty.
Which brings us back to "gun violence prevention."
Right now, the main focus of the Brady Campaign appears to be preserving and even strengthening background checks for firearm purchases. This is widely touted by Brady operatives as gun violence prevention, and all legal and Constitutional arguments aside, the current use of the NICS system appears to be yielding some overall desirable results. But many of the other ideas proposed by Brady luminaries under the umbrella of gun violence prevention still seem to fall under the same old paradigm of violating due process and weakening the age-old notion of "innocent until proven guilty."
You want gun violence prevention? Last I heard, many areas of America still have a huge gang problem. California, which arguably has the most draconian gun laws in the entire nation, is awash with armed thugs claiming loyalty to this colored rag or that particular number or whatever their logo happens to be. Flush with drug money and getting high on their own supply, often with minimal formal education and virtually no prospects for getting a decent career, they pull guns on each other for the most trivial and pointless of reasons, and it seems like the rest of society is being conditioned to accept their existence instead of doing something about it. Giving these kids a chance to excel at something that provides a decent wage and a chance to escape the cycle of murder and chemical addiction - that's what I'd call gun violence prevention.
John F. Kennedy spoke of going to the Moon "not because it is easy, but because it is hard." Some approaches to gun violence prevention are undoubtedly going to be quite difficult. But they will be much easier than law-abiding citizens trying to reclaim Constitutional rights once they are taken away. We can improve our record on gun-related crime. But if we sacrifice our rights in order to do so, then the whole effort is pointless.
= new reply since forum marked as read
... a more aggressive approach to recognizing and treating mental illness might help. We used to do a better job, but a lot of that infrastructure vanished under Prez Reagan.
accepts everything in the Democratic platform verbatim because he calls himself a Democrat. As you can see it talks about AWB and gun show loop holes which is just a foot in the door of gun prohibition. As I stated before anti-gunners can be seen through.
[IMG]
[/IMG]
I wonder sometimes which of these definitions some anti-gunners fall under.
Go peddle your wares in meta...
You're posts are just like adding zeroes. Nothing but whining and caps lock abuse from you. One of these days you'll actually come up with something original concerning gun policy in this country. Do you actually understand current laws well enough to make a common sense assessment and contribution? Nothing but Brady Campaign parroting as far as I've seen from you. That's the best you've done. 
You don't recall? Some people have memory issues and I understand that. It explains how you forgot what what actually just posted because it was clearly stated that you are the one parroting. Minor detail of course but then the pro-gun control advocates are well known not to inconvenience themselves with details. And nothing I stated assumes you are a member or read anything from them. Details.
But first work on your reading comprehension...
Not a damn thing anyone can do about it either....
the majority DOES NOT support banning certain firearms such as handguns or "assault weapons."
October 26, 2011
Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban
Support for stricter gun laws in general is lowest Gallup has measured
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.
***snip***
For the first time, Gallup finds greater opposition to than support for a ban on semiautomatic guns or assault rifles, 53% to 43%. In the initial asking of this question in 1996, the numbers were nearly reversed, with 57% for and 42% against an assault rifle ban. Congress passed such a ban in 1994, but the law expired when Congress did not act to renew it in 2004. Around the time the law expired, Americans were about evenly divided in their views.
***snip***
As recently as 2007, a majority of Americans still favored stricter laws, which had been the dominant view since Gallup first asked the question in 1990.
Americans' preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws (60%) rather than pass new gun laws in addition to stricter enforcement of existing laws (35%). That has been the public's view since Gallup first asked the question in 2000; the 60% this year who want stricter enforcement but no new laws is tied for the high in the trend.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx
Estimates show that there are over 300,000,000 firearms owned by 80,000,000 citizens in our nation. While some hunters do use single shot rifles to take game most use bolt action or semi-automatic firearms.
Even if you did manage to pass a ban on rifles that have a larger capacity than one round, how would you enforce that ban and confiscate the weapons that were suddenly illegal? Let me assure you that a HIGH percentage of gun owners would simply refuse to turn in their weapons.
Would you task Homeland Security with the job of going house to house confiscating firearms and arresting the owners? I would predict that any attempt to do so would lead to a violent revolution. It is possible that the government would win in the end but the amount of unnecessary bloodshed would be enormous. There are many "patriotic" gun owners in this nation who would view gun confiscation as a prelude to destroying our system of democracy and would be willing to fight to prevent it form happening. Remember that we have the best trained military in the world and many citizens have received excellent training from their years of service that they could use to resist what they would feel is a dictatorial government.
Fortunately such a gun ban as you suggest has no chance of passing anytime in the near future and very little chance of ever passing. It's simply a pipe dream. Even the most ardent supporters of gun control are not suggesting anything close to your idea.
At one time, as a politician from Illinois, Obama did support a handgun ban. That's not surprising as Illinois is one of the most gun unfriendly states in the Union and he would have had a hard time getting elected as a dog catcher in that state if he would have been pro-gun.
During his recent campaign for reelection Obama did suggest a discussion on another "assault weapons" ban. However there is little interest in Congress in pushing for such an idea and the votes are lacking to pass such a measure. Overall in his first term as President, Obama has been very gun friendly. I have little fear that he will turn into a "gun grabber" in his second term.
It's always great fun to fantasize but reality is a bitch.
It's my opinion and also the view of many gun owners that we can improve existing gun laws and better enforce them. I feel that this should be a goal of responsible citizens on both sides of the issue. Forget your draconian approach to gun control as all it does is alienate the other side and makes compromise impossible.
hunters do use single shot rifles to take game most use bolt action or semi-automatic firearms.
Even if you did manage to pass a ban on rifles that have a larger capacity than one round, how would you enforce that ban and confiscate the weapons that were suddenly illegal? Let me assure you that a HIGH percentage of gun owners would simply refuse to turn in their weapons.
"Would you task Homeland Security with the job of going house to house confiscating firearms and arresting the owners? I would predict that any attempt to do so would lead to a violent revolution."
Hmmm, how did the last revolution work out again?
"Fortunately such a gun ban as you suggest has no chance of passing anytime in the near future and very little chance of ever passing. It's simply a pipe dream. Even the most ardent supporters of gun control are not suggesting anything close to your idea."
It already exists, by and large, in New Jersey, New York City, and Chicago. Overtime, we can work towards expanding it to cover the rest of the country.
"At one time, as a politician from Illinois, Obama did support a handgun ban. That's not surprising as Illinois is one of the most gun unfriendly states in the Union and he would have had a hard time getting elected as a dog catcher in that state if he would have been pro-gun."
He dropped the hand gun ban, but is still an ardent (and open) supporter of the AWB. One step at a time, friend.
"It's always great fun to fantasize but reality is a bitch."
Maybe, maybe not. Of course, 50 years ago if I said gays woudl serve openly in the military and a black man would be president, I would have been told the same thing >
"Forget your draconian approach to gun control as all it does is alienate the other side and makes compromise impossible."
I'm not too worried on "compromising" with repigs on this issue. The other side consists of nothing but white racist rednecks, so f**k them AND their opinions. However, I am content with letting it lie as a major party issue until we get a stranglehold in both houses and the presidency (fingers crossed for next congressional election!).
(1) Actually, he came from a safe district.
(2) To the extent that he "supported" a handgun ban, that's not clear from his voting record. At one time when a signifigant hand-gun ban vote was called in Illinois, and some were said to have been relying upon his vote, he was absent in Hawaii.
(3) His words and actions are inconsistent. As an example, at one time he said "As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." But, because he signed an anti-gun document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois, his signature on that document (rather than his words "I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
has been interpreted as reflecting his true feelings.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
What's his true position? Who knows?
my Glock what ever would I do. Please post a link where the majority of Americans support restrictions on gun owners. Now this is the part where you tell me I am a troll after 9 years on DU and I post here then slither under a rock.
Oh yes here is a picture of my little sweetheart my G19 Gen 3 this one is new they are so cute at that age. She goes with me everywhere I go I am licensed in my state. My party is the Democratic party and I own guns. And I support the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights don't you? Or does your party plank not support the Bill of Rights?
[IMG]
[/IMG]
