dropping it would be yet another reason to say fuck the democratic party. Americans OVERWHELMINGLY support a ban.

Supporting someone like Sen Mark Kirk who was endorsed by Americans for Responsible Solutions? Should gun control be top consideration for a Democratic voter?

that some DU members openly supported him and encouraged others to "vote single issue over party"

Kirk was as independent as McConnell allowed him to be.

overlooking the big picture. Especially in the next few elections when every Democratic candidate will need support.

were more supportive of Democratic positions. My personal Representative, Daniel Lipinski, is still against the ACA.

I have met a lot of gun owners who once were Democrats but now are Republicans.

I find your assertation that "Americans OVERWHELMINGLY support a ban" to be questioable at best.

then they were never Democrats.

if someone owns a gun, probably not.

I do not support a federal ban that is championed via ignorance.

An AWB on the federal level; what a loser of an idea.

After a 10 year federal ban no one can point to solid evidence than means a damn thing other than time and money wasted along with some laws and lawmakers that are now the butt of some jokes.

Splendid idea, a federal AWB. While I ponder that maybe I'll consider having my appendix put back in.

Gun restrictionistas are in total retreat on the AWB. It has only gotten worse for them since Sandy Hook where a completely legal AR15 was used even though Connecticut had an AWB in place.

[IMG][/IMG]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

Banning anything based on cosmetic appearance makes us all look ill-informed and petty.

I know this seems to make perfect sense if you live in NYC or Chicago ... but in 90% of the country guns simply aren't a problem.

It does give our opponents a very large opening to associate every democrat with Sen (Turn 'em all in) Boxer and like-minded Democrats.

The AWB saves very, very few lives and costs many, many votes.

As an aside, I used to ride (Harleys) with a group of military veterans in New Hampshire and, while a gun owner and CCW holder, never carried a gun. I almost positive that I was the only one not packing ... and several of my fellow riders had multiple weapons.

Before you ask -- "What were they afraid of"
The answer -- Not a damn thing

Drop the AWB, concentrate on the economy and jobs

...eliminate a point of division that does little to nothing except cost us votes.

Welcome to DU and the group.

Have to get a permit to write your congressman.

Drop the ideas of repealing PLCAA, wanting to track bullets, register all owners/firearms. Those are just a few that are non-starters for many gun owners, off the top of my head.

These are all ideas that punish or impose restrictions only on lawful citizens and have no real impact on criminal actions. As much as it may pain some in the Democratic Party to think of it, if you want to win elections at the national level, these ideas are contrary to that goal. Talk about polls, piblic opinion and "majority support" all you want, but when you get to the heart of the matter, very few voters cast their vote because a candidate supports such ideas. However, MILLIONS of voters will show up to vote against such ideas!

While those ideas play well to voters that will already cast their votes for democrats, the stink like a fish left in the sun for three days to the vast majority of gun owners, and people outside of places like San Francisco and New York City.

Just my .02...

Repeal the PLCAA, register bullets

Drop the idea of a federal AWB: 22
A federal AWB is a defining Democratic goal: 4

Explain this for me: Why is a federal ban better than a state ban?

that you could use the militarized alphabet agencies to "enforce" it. Assuming you are asking the "4" voters this.

and come up with what they would say if they dared.

The problem is that the AWB isn't nearly enough, and isn't really even a "good start". It's not that it should be dropped, it's that it is a symbolic effort towards a serious problem.

I'll agree that passing laws with limited utility will not move the party forward. Unless one can pass sufficient legislation to provide actual results, it will continue to be primarily a fund raising issue for many organizations, and an excuse for single issue voters. Very few single issue gun control voters, but alot of single issue gun owner voters.

...will do nothing to very little. Guns can be manufactured with a few simple tools by anyone with gunsmith skills or by one without those skills but having an internet connection and a 3-D printer.

People grow their only cannabis. During prohibition, there was a profit motive in developing the skill to brew alcohol.

There are currently over 600,000,000 guns in private hands worldwide. Half of all of those are here in the US. Guns are not consumable products, they are durable lasting items. Guns are simple tools. Those who believe bans will solve anything are also simple tools.

I agree that the vast majority of gun control laws that actually get passed tend to be rather toothless in this country. The end result is the perception that NO gun control law can work. However, other countries are vastly more successful in controlling fire arms. Of course, some of that is because other western democracies tend to have a greater sense of "law abiding" than we have here in the US where speeding, tax evasion, and building codes are considered minor nuisances to be ignored.

It isn't that the other countries don't do a better job of controlling guns, it is because they don't have the conditions that create urban gangs and their related violence. Our individualism does have some effect, but that has more to do with liking their restrictions on guns, which are often less than New Jersey's, or their restrictions on abortion.

There are Urban gangs all around the world. And part of the reasons for the increased concern about immigration in Europe is because of the growing immigrant populations that are poorly employed and developing similar structures.

The real problem is that we are basically a violent culture here in the US and we believe that violence is a primary solution to conflict. That's not nearly as universal in much of western culture, although it could be changing with the extensive degree of population movement going on right now.

As a culture, we are no more violent than Europe. Most of the country is as peaceful as Europe. Pockets of urban areas is another issue. You can not compare inner city Paris or Amsterdam with Detroit or Chicago. When you look at the most violent cities in the world, few of which are in the US, have the same characteristics. All but one or two, Detroit and NOLA, have strict gun control laws. Most are in countries that have far stricter laws than anywhere in Europe.
Also, Latin America is also western culture.
poverty
crumbling infrastructure
gangs
political corruption
extremes in wealth inequality.

BTW, your logical fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It's not a fallacy to show a statistical correlation. Cause and effect aren't established until the manner of the effect can demonstrated. In this case it can.

As a society we accept violence much more than most of our western democracies. It permeates our culture in just about every level. What you are referencing is that the vast majority of us, despite our acceptance of violence as a solution, end up rarely using it. We do however regularly defend those that do, as well as structure our society to ensure that people are permitted.

In fact, there is no correlation outside of cherry-picked countries. The body of criminology suggests there is zero effect. The said countries had just as low rates before they had any gun control at all.

First, I object to the terminology "gun-control" because the very idea of laws equaling control is a myth. The only real control over humans is self-control. The legislation commonly referred to as gun-control principally burdens lawful gun owners, attempts to ban weapons that used in a tiny minority of overall assaults and make law enforcement work easier. I don't see how compromising on any rights or freedoms is reasonable only to make the work of law enforcement easier. This thread mostly addresses the part of the party platform that advocates another AWB.

It's just not that hard to control what's never been all that popular. I try to look at everyone and all cultures, religions and traditions as different. We need laws that work for us.

About one in three own guns in the US and they aren't all Republicans.

A "greater sense of law abiding" maybe that's why all those laws about DUI were ignored for years. It wasn't until DD campaigns and PSAs on TV that much changed. I maintain empowering people and looking at them as solutions rather than as potential criminals is better. YMMV.

I think UBCs are a good start on things. Do you have any ideas?

Get rid of all weapons capable of holding more than about 3 rounds. Severely restrict who can obtain one at all. Change liability laws to hold people personally responsible for their weapons, including how they are stored.

Oh, and most of this will require that the 2nd be extensively modified if not repealed.

And that will require that we have a major change in our cultural attitude about the value and utility of violence as a primary solution to conflict.

I'm not holding my breath.

I believe that the cultural change will have to precede the change in the laws. They will lead, not follow. That change in attitude will address your concern about civil wars being necessary to make these changes. Oh, and obviously the military, and certain police activities would be exempt from these limitations. They already have access to weapons that are heavily restricted.

And more importantly these changes are going to come as the demographic changes occur in this country, which will probably be long after you and I are anywhere near the majority, if we are here at all.

After 9/11 I think just about everyone considered violence to be a primary solution to conflict. Furthermore, we as a nation have been at war more than we have been at peace, that hardly suggests a peaceful culture. We have "stand your ground" laws so that people don't have to exit a hostile situation if they choose not to but instead engage in acts of deadly violence. Torture is accepted in this country as a primary method of information extraction (despite its dubious utility). Our language is filled with violent expressions that are used regularly in nonhostile situations. We have "wars" on cancer, poverty, and drugs.

Mind you, the vast majority of people when confronted with an actual opportunity (or necessity) to use violence often end up choosing to avoid it. However, they readily accept others plans to do so, as well as defend those that end up choosing to do so.

The very same instinct of self-defense which acts for our preservation and is an asset at the personal level but a liability to a nation. Various law enforcement agencies have learned that in certain situations (barricaded shooters, hostage situations...) negotiation is a preferred course versus a strictly tactical solution.

The cold war ('50s - '80s) was a long string of conflicts like Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, China/Taiwan, Checkpoint Charlie, various Middle East conflicts and Afghanistan where hostility erupted into armed conflicts and wars. Cuba, for example, was handled better than Afghanistan but far too much of our foreign policy degenerates into (excuse the expression) measurement of the figurative genitals.

We have for over a century favored building a strong military (and using it too often). I believe in the saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." For the public, military victories are easier to understand than negotiations and treaties.

Of the many that were great mistakes here's my short list of the biggest:
War on drugs- this can go on forever since a new arch villain and his major crime in focus can be identified and spread via the media as often as needed.
War on terror- this can go on forever since new arch villains and major crimes in focus can be identified and spread via the media as often as needed.
(the list goes on)

The vast number of people, on their own, work to avoid violence and conflict. This is not true when an authority figure becomes involved. See the Milgram Experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment.

Our leaders often lead us into war and conflict. From Daniel Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

I live by the USMC rules for gun fighting #26: "Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

We can probably be accused of engaging in conflict to easily/quickly as a culture. It is the primary feature of a huge portion of our entertainment. Which is a bit odd considering that the majority of our lives are filled with work and family and those two activities are supposed to involve cooperation and unity, although they rarely do.

... Accused??? I think you'd have to be a warmongering republican to even have reservations.

Shootem' up movies and video games are very popular but the idea behind electing experienced officials is they have reserve, foresight and wisdom. That is the whole idea behind a republic.

We need to cut back on war and military spending. Military equipment isn't universally a one size fits all for conflicts. Dress the cops like the military, mobilize them in APCs and hand them military level weapons and then be confused when things don't end well at a protest or march.

Feds have had issues responding to situations. Ruby Ridge, Waco... Just examples of events that escalated too quickly and were poorly handled. The Bundy & co. siege at the wildlife building was an improvement.

many weapons that are 3 round only, no detachable mag. A few shotguns, (most are more, with an easily removable plug inside the tube), some REALLY high powered magnum rifles, drillings, and that's about it.

Those are the guns that cause the most grief in this town and they were taking over from Saturday Night Specials when I left Boston.

...almost all handguns are semi-auto. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

I don't exactly get that point either.

with a "double action" revolver, you get one shot with each pull of the trigger. Just like a semi auto.

mechanically.

but the argument could still be made that a double action revolver is a semi auto, just going on definition of trigger pull per shot, no other action required. I hear the NY police Glocks have something like a 14 lb trigger pull. Bet nearly all my DA revolvers can beat that.

I would more correctly identity it as a double action revolver. Most semi-autos fire the first round double action, then the rest semi-auto, with the hammer being placed in the firing position by the action of the slide. The revolver requires that the hammer be pulled back manually (via the trigger) for each shot.

haven't studied up on their firearms knowledge, and would probably argue the case against DA's. Their technical knowledge, shall we say, is a little lacking.

The Glock could nearly be described as a DA, as the striker is only partially cocked by the slide, remainder of tension put on by the trigger. Any ban/restriction would have to look at the nuts and bolts of operation, otherwise a worthless piece of legislation would be passed. See the 94 AWB for reference.

I have one that does. Another is striker fired, where each pull is single action. The one I carry functions more like a double action revolver. Semi auto simply means casing ejection and placing a round in the chamber is part of the gun's functioning not requiring the shooter to operate the bolt or lever.

Internal striker which requires double action for each round fired.

No trigger pull, necessary. But you point is well taken. There are quite a few revolvers on the market with a very light trigger pull.

Someone with a lack of knowledge, or purposely is trying to blur the lines on mechanical function (see: full auto vs. semi auto, machine gun/assault weapon arguments) could argue the point of 1 trigger pull = 1 shot fired.

as all AR-15's and other semiauto rifles *combined*.

So, no big surprise.

that you can stuff a revolver in your pocket or somewhere else. Jamming an AR-15 or other rifle down your shorts is, most likely, going to be highly uncomfortable and obvious. The gun most used in crime, is going to be the one that can be carried/hidden easily.

A revolver, by nature, can be highly inaccurate, also. You have 6 (on average) chambers, and 1 barrel. Each chamber must be drilled in proper alignment with the barrel, or accuracy will suffer. Properly fitted automatics can be very accurate. Revolver has the jump by being less finicky with ammo selection, and if you have a misfire, can refire immediately. YMMV.

It weighs approximately 11oz, unloaded. As to accuracy, I have to respectfully disagree. A revolver in the hands of a trained shooter is extremely accurate. Just ask any police officer who "grew up" with them as a standard sidearm. Plus they rarely, if ever, jam.

I was saying that handguns are more easily concealable than rifles, thus are generally used more for criminal intent.

If you re-read my post, I also stated that revolvers CAN BE inaccurate, due to the cylinder/barrel alignment. A good shot can shoot well with an accurate revolver/pistol, but cannot do so well with an inaccurate one.

But you have to admit, the DB9 is a pretty cool, and very concealable, 9mm.

some of those subcompact nines don't fit my hand well. Something about the front to back vs. width. Nice looking piece, tho.

When they banned them, it caused the criminals to up gun, from cheap imported .25's and .22's, that "may or may not" go bang when the trigger is pulled.. To Smith and Wessons, glocks, sig sauers, and Colts, that are at least .38, if not .45 and 9mm,s that are of much higher quality, much more powerful, and DO go "bang" when the trigger is pulled.

The saturday night special ban, is largely responsible for the "up gunning" of urban crooks more than anything else.

Brought to light that police officers wore body armor, and if you wanted to shoot one, aim high.