Gun Votes Now Part of Political Agenda

[rodbarnett]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate's repudiation of a gun industry legal protection bill this week gave the National Rifle Association an unexpected blow and injected gun policy into this year's elections.

<snip>

Kerry gave a blistering speech accusing President Bush of "walking away" from his commitment to extend the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expires next September.

"What we have now is a benchmark for the presidential race and the Senate races," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "We got senators on the record on issues that are important to our members. We got Bush and Kerry on the record."

Many lawmakers would just as soon steer clear of gun politics in an election year, worried by the NRA's ability to mobilize voters who care intensely about their weapons.

The well-financed NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. Its strength lies both in its effective Washington operation and an energetic single-issue grass roots organization of roughly 4 million gun owners

http://news.myway.com/politics/article/id/51190|politics|03-04-2004::07:36|reuters.html

comment : i know this is a good wedge issue but which side will be most effected ??

[MrBenchley]

1. Republicans

Democrats need to play up the image of them turrning on a dime to vote "no" against their own bill when Big Brother Wayne LaPierre sent them a message via PDA....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1186972#1187008

Let's also see them explain why the proposals to close the gun show loophole and to extend and strengthen the assault weaponn ban are being kept from coming up for a vote by GOP "leadership"...since both passed the Senate handily to public acclaim as amendments to this disgraceful immunity bill.

[GinaMaria]

2. I think this is exactly what they wanted

they can only run a campaign on guns and gays. They can't run on their record. Fear and Hate mongering is the only way to get the people to vote against their interests.

Probably part of a strategy by the gop to have this turn out the way it did.

[NickB79]

3. Gun control

The third rail of politics, touch it and you're dead. This is gonna come back and bite us in the ass for sure, just like it did after 1994 and 2000.

[GinaMaria]

4. maybe not

What good is a gun if you can't afford the bullets?

[DoNotRefill]

12. Bullets are easy to make at home.

You can make them on your stove, literally, with less than $100 worth of equipment. All it takes is a heat source, a pan, a cavity mould, a press, and lead. Before I got lazy, I used to use old lead tire weights to make bullets. It was cheap, and it recycled.

[GinaMaria]

16. $100 bucks when you've been unemployeed

buys a lot of groceries or goes to the rent. People are really hurting out there. I just don't think this will play the way it usually does.

[DoNotRefill]

20. The $100...

is a "sunken cost", just like the gun itself, and is for new equipment. You can get it cheaper for used equipment. And in case you didn't realize it, $300 for a gun and $100 for the reloading stuff is cheap if you bag 5 deer a season and eat them. For an average sized whitetail deer, you should get ~80 pounds of useable meat. Hell, around here you can't get bad ground beef for that...

Hunting is a time-honored traditional way to put food on the table for poor, rural America...

[SoDesuKa]

6. Third Rail

It's hard to believe that so many people are simple-minded enough to make guns their litmus-test issue. How very disappointing.

[DoNotRefill]

14. Yup, just as it's surprising how people in the '60s used minority rights.

Civil rights are civil rights, regardless of which civil rights are being argued about.

[Crachet2004]

18. I think you are right.

After 911 and Patriot, why would we support gun control? Our leadership needs to update their polling and focus groups on this issue!

For a fact, it cost us my state, WV, last time. And that was before 911! And Patriot! Ohio has 29 Appalachian counties, and they already can't hunt with high-powered rifles, over there...which makes them very suspicious of any further talk of gun control. We need Ohio and WV.

Given the current climate of fear in this country, is it any surprise that someone might feel that way?

How many more elections will we have to lose before our leadership smartens up? This is no time to be the Party that is trying, in any way, shape or form to disarm the American People. Don't they trust us? People won't stand for it-at least where I come from.

Yeah. I think the whole debate on gun control will work against us...again!

[seasat]

5. I think the gun issue may be different this time.

If you play up on the national security and terrorism issue, you can deflate those opposed to the assault weapons ban. All you have to do is mention the availability of assault weapons to terrorist cells that might be operating in the US and play it as a national security issue. You could also point out that terrorists could obtain weapons without a background check using the gun show loophole. Point out that legal weapons are and should be available to legal US citzens for self defense. You want to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of potential terrorists. If Kerry plays it that way it'd work.

[NickB79]

7. Or the issue could be played in reverse

Play on the people's fears of terrorism and tell them how they need more handguns and rifles for self-defense and homeland security, and the issue could well spin the other way.

"You could also point out that terrorists could obtain weapons without a background check using the gun show loophole."

Actually, that would be much more difficult than it sounds, because gun dealers at gun shows already perform background checks.

[seasat]

8. Those wouldn't work.

NickB79 wrote: "Play on the people's fears of terrorism and tell them how they need more handguns and rifles for self-defense and homeland security, and the issue could well spin the other way."

Then they would be playing into the argument that people are less secure under this administration. I'd immediately respond back with quotes from Bush about how much safer we supposedly are. If we are safer then why would we need more guns? I'd agree with him that his policy has failed but that the police are better able to protect us instead of vigilante mobs. Citizens have access to plenty of guns for self defense without assault weapons. Personally, I'd rather sit back and fight a terrorist from afar with a deer rifle than charge in with an AK-47. Keep the weapons out of the hands of terrorists.

NickB79 wrote: "Actually, that would be much more difficult than it sounds, because gun dealers at gun shows already perform background checks."

The gun show loophole applies to individual sellers who set up tables at gun shows selling their "personal collections" and are not dealers. The dealers support closing this loophole since it allows an unfair competition against them since they have to run background checks.

[DoNotRefill]

10. What do you base this on?

"The dealers support closing this loophole since it allows an unfair competition against them since they have to run background checks."

I know a lot of gun dealers. The ones I know uniformly are against "closing the loophole". Seems most of them know that people setting up tables to sell their personal collections MUST have FFLs if they do any kind of volume or make a profit in any way. Failure to do so is already a felony under existing law.

They understand what "closing the gunshow loophole" is REALLY about....closing gunshows, period.

[FeebMaster]

13. Sounds like a good way

"The gun show loophole applies to individual sellers who set up tables at gun shows selling their "personal collections" and are not dealers."

to get nailed by the ATF for dealing without a license.

[sam7]

19. You're wrong about a few things

"...the police are better able to protect us instead of vigilante mobs."

I won't argue the mob part but the police themselves will tell you that when you dial 911 you're on your own for at least 5-10 minutes at best. They'll probably catch the guy afterward but if you don't have a gun or a ball bat you're screwed.

"Keep the weapons out of the hands of terrorists."

Here's why gun control doesn't keep guns from criminals/terrorists. It's real simple. Criminals by definition don't obey the law. Why would they start obeying gun laws. Even if tossed the 2nd amendment out the window and confiscated every gun criminals would still have guns. If a drug dealer can smuggle in tons of crack who really believes he can't get an automatic rifle? Especially since guns are as necessary a part of the trade as the drugs themselves.

And why would (like a poster below notes) a terrorist buy a $1,000 semi-automatic AR15 when he can get all the fully automatic weapons he wants? Al Quaeda could drive truckloads of them across the Mexican border without a problem.

And besides, when England and Australia essentially banned guns a few years ago, gun violence skyrocketed. In England by more than 100%.

[Bandit]

9. because gun dealers at gun shows already perform background checks.

Are the only people selling guns at gun shows "Gun Dealers"? If this were the case then there would be no gun loop hole. It is the private citizen that sells guns that doesn't do background checks. IMO if it is done at a show there should be checks. If you sell a gun out of your home it is different. Of course depending upon the volumn of your sales.

[NickB79]

15. Mainly, yes they are licensed dealers

In the past, it was more common to see individuals selling their private collections at tables at gun shows. However, most gun shows now refuse to rent out tables to anyone selling guns who are not FFL (federal firearms license) holders due to liability concerns. In effect, the gun shows have started to police themselves because of the hype of the "gunshow loophole".

If a non-licensed person does obtain a table to sell their guns at, there are legal limits as to how many guns one can sell per year without an FFL. More than 20 guns sold per year and you are legally considered as selling guns for commerce, a BIG no-no without an FFL.

How is selling a gun from a gunshow different from selling a gun through the classified ads from home? I don't deny that some people do sell guns at gunshows without performing background checks. The point is that these people are a small percentage of the sellers at the shows, and most sell mainly hunting rifles and shotguns generally unsuitable for crime use. My problem with requiring background checks at gunshows is because of the fact that logically it should then apply to those selling guns through private sales outside gunshows as well.

[FeebMaster]

11. Right.

Because terrorists are going to bother with the namby-pamby semi-auto clones in the legal market here in the us.

[mantis49]

17. I was really hoping gun legislation wouldn't be an issue

in this election. My husband thinks the 2nd amendment is the most important issue in the world. But, he was talking about voting for Nader this time (which would essentially be a vote for Kerry.) This may cause him to go back to * et al.

It can be frustrating knowing our votes always cancel each other out.