“Democrats rethink gun-control stance” Oct. 2003 -- We had 5 years to prepare to fight in Oct 2008

[jody]

Democrats rethink gun-control stance

The perception that Democrats are hostile to the rights of gun owners has damaged the party in the last two elections and will do so again in 2004 unless they change their ways, the Democratic Leadership Council said yesterday.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, scoffed at the notion that a "poll-tested moniker" would make a difference in elections.

"They are underestimating the intelligence of voters," Mr. Arulanandam said. "What matters to NRA members and the tens of millions of gun owners is not rhetoric, but action. It's a dangerous gamble for these groups to assume they can pull one over on the voters."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

But the two senators from rural states, both of which were won by President Bush in the 2000 election, said that strident antigun Democrats -- especially Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Charles S. Schumer of New York and Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey -- pose image problems. Those senators are in the forefront of battles to strengthen the ban on assault weapons, to defeat legislation that would protect gun dealers from some lawsuits, and to strictly regulate sales at weekend gun shows.

Related special report "Winning the Gun Vote", October 16, 2003

We Dems had five years to prepare to fight and nothing has changed.

Related commentary by Washington Times hack Donald Lambro "Gun control target practice" 19 Sep. 2008.

“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” Will Rogers

[no limit]

1. Let me be the first one here to say, fuck the dlc

they can take their centrist bullshit and shove it you know where.

The position the demcorats have taken on gun control is perfectly fine.

[jody]

2. Obviously you disagree with Obama who embraced the DLC position leaving only one contentious issue.

[no limit]

3. Obama did not embrace this position because of the DLC

infact Obama is fairly anti-dlc which is one the main reasons I supported him over Hillary in the primaries. Even if the DLC might be right in this case they need to piss off. They have rotten the democratic party from the inside out and they need to go.

[jody]

4. The DLC position Oct 2003 on 2nd preceded Obama's election Nov 2004. n/t

[krispos42]

5. The DLC's position on the AWB...

...has made it into the national Democratic mindset, especially in anti-gun Chicago.

THEREFORE, as a state and US senator of such an anti-gun constituency, he had to pay attention to their opinions, including the DLC-created position that his constituents had absorbed.

The popularity of the DLC position on the AWB has forced a lot of politicians to embrace the position in the same way that many Republicans have to suck up to the Religious Right even though they are economic or social concervatives, not religious conservatives.

[SteveM]

6. I would like to see some good political research into the DLC's influence...

How can they continue to push this stupid AWB and have so many Jumping Jim Crow over it? Trouble is, research and in-depth reporting on this subject depends on a fair and well-funded media. MSM has shown itself to be little more than agitprop for gun-controllers, and there is comparatively little incentive for conservative groups to investigate this; why should they when the issue is a winner for them? Frankly, I think the whole gun-control movement is a house of cards which has steel girders painted all over it.

[benEzra]

7. The DLC were the ones pushing the ban-people's-guns bullshit

The "assault weapon" fraud didn't come from the party's liberal wing; it came from the DLC'ers, as a way to appear "tough on crime" to right-leaning law-and-order types. Problem was, the DLC didn't grasp the fact that 4 out of 5 gun owners are nonhunters, and that "assault weapon" are the most popular centerfire target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes.

[spin]

8. The way to appear to be "tough on crime" is

to go after criminals who use firearms rather than honest gun owners.

Why is this not a popular idea with the anti-gun crowd?

If you reduce the number of criminals on the street who use illegal firearms as tools of their trade, you make society safer. If you make society safer, you reduce to number of guns purchased by honest citizens to protect themselves from the criminal element. The result fewer firearms in our society.

If you make it difficult for honest citizens to own weapons, you make the criminals lives easier. They can rob, rape and pillage with little fear of encountering an armed opponent.

Interviews with criminals in jail show they fear armed citizens more than police.

A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." In asking felons what they personally thought about while committing crimes, 34% indicated that they thought about getting "shot at by police" or "shot by victim."

NOTE: the following link is from a very pro-gun site. The data is from a government sponsored survey conducted by Professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117

[krispos42]

9. Hey, ben...

...can I ask a favor of you?

You've done a lot of research threads such as that one about the conservative roots of gun control. Do you think you could put them in your Journal so they're easy for everybody to find?

[benEzra]

10. I'll give it a shot. (n/t)

[benEzra]

11. OK, got it set up and threw some posts in there.

Will do more with it as time permits. (My son had an angioplasty of the pulmonary arteries last week at Boston Children's, so I'm a bit behind on stuff around the house, as well as sleep and exercise.)

[jody]

12. Thinking of your family.

Jody

[hogwyld]

13. I'm sending good vibes to you and your family

We may disagree on the gun issue, but you are a good person and a solid Dem. I hope your son has a speedy recovery.:hug:

[benEzra]

14. Thank you both for the kind thoughts.

He's doing well; the caths don't keep him down long if there are no complications. We had preops on a Tuesday, the angioplasty (pretty extensive, and successful) Wednesday morning, and he was discharged Thursday around lunchtime. We got home Saturday night; I promised him that I'd take him by the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore if he was brave (which he was, as always), otherwise we'd have been back Friday night or early Saturday. He had a bit of a reaction to the contrast dye or the anesthetic reversal agents or something (bad rash and fever) and has some sores on his legs from the incisions and dressings, but he's now doing well and played in the kiddie pool this afternoon.

Here's the man himself, from another cardiology trip last year:



I'll try to get some more recent pictures up soon.