They will cost more votes than they gain.

The AWB was based on appearances, not functionality.

There IS no "gun show loophole". Private owners, whether at a gun show or not, may legally transfer firearms without background checks.


They're both complete non-issues.

AR's and AK's are some of the most popular centerfire rifles on the market today. It's not 'commonsense' to restrict rifles based upon cosmetic features or magazine capacity, nor should Democrats try to pretend that these rifles are only in the hands of maniacs.

I like the platform up until the mention of the AWB and closing the erroneously-named gun show loophole. Pushing either of these failed policies will only lose rural votes.

-app

...that I don't think Dems really plan to do either one. They're just trying to appease the anti-gun people.

However, it will be used by at least some gun rights supporters as proof that Democrats are moving toward taking their guns.

me every month:

Pres. Obama cannot enact laws, only the Congress can and how many here think that's going to happen?
Not a snowball's chance in hell that's going to happen, and as far as 1 poster who suggested that Pres Obama issue an executive order, that's just insane thinking that a politician as smart as Pres. Obama would do that.

Why get them agitated by talking about AWBs and closing gun show "loopholes" when we're not going to do it anyway?

why get the opposition fired up with proposing feel good, do nothing laws?
The AWB was a complete flop in as it did nothing to lower the crime rate, didn't actually ban any rifle, didn't ban existing mags that were >10 rounds and ended up costing us the House and Senate.

The only reason I can fathom that the renewal of the AWB is in the platform is to throw the gun control people a bone.

It would be political suicide for the party to make a hard push.

The trouble is some will believe it and help move that center a bit to the right rather than left.

SorRy.

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. All guns sold at a gun show have to follow the same laws as they would anywhere else in that state.

The AWB accomplished absolutely nothing. It banned some cosmetic features on guns.

call it the private, no background checks, sales loop hole.

It is a state issue. The commerce clause of the Constitution stands in your way.

by the Federal government. All that needs to be proven is that an unregulated sale ended up in another state with laws on back ground checks on private sales.

and no one has any interest or standing to do so. Machine gun ownership was rare even before then.

Private sales of guns affect interstate commerce, which is all that is necessary.

I bought a gun from a friend one town over and it hasn't left the area. How does that affect interstate commerce?

For example, guns sold in the secondary market are trafficked across state lines and used to commit crimes in other states.

The commerce clause has been interpreted pretty broadly. For example, SCOTUS ruled that the federal government can make it illegal for a person to grow their own marijuana for personal use.

use guns to commit crimes. You are suggesting using it for law enforcement not commerce.

From the point of view of constitutionality, the fact that private gun sales affect illicit gun trafficking is enough for the commerce clause.

change that.


I love how gun grabbers will warp any law any Constitution (state/national) just to get their way.

You have morphed the "Commerce Clause NRA talking point" into the "Gun control doesn't work NRA talking point".

its called "I failed trying to make a point so I am just going to him/her a NRA spokesperson", its not a good strategy.

Do you have anything to add about the commerce clause? Because if not, then we can consider this issue settled: requiring background checks for private sales does not violate the commerce clause. Another NRA talking point bites the dust.

pertain to interstate commerce and not intrastate trade? You just can't use the commerce clause to do whatever you want to do.

Funny I see these same people gnashing their teeth at it when it's used to close down medical marijuana clinics.

used the Commerce clause to close Planed parenthood or abortion clinics? Somehow I doubt it.

The cognitive dissonance never even registers.

nt

Again I ask doesn't the commerce clause already effect interstate guns sales?

The only barriers to closing the private sales loophole are political. There's no question that private gun sales affect interstate commerce.

didn't think so. He gave a very substantive, as far as I can tell, explanation. You didn't answer him and you gave me gibberish. It is not really a loophole since private persons are prohibited from carrying out a NICS check. Why wasn't that part of the origianl Brady Bill? It was one of the rare times Brady and the NRA half way worked together on something. I have a pretty good idea what each side will speculate but I doubt any actually knows the reasons.

Of course you like his argument, and it sounds familiar to you because it's been bounced around the NRA echo chamber over and over. But if you poke your head out of the bubble and read about how the Commerce Clause has been interpreted, you'll see that a clear effect on interstate commerce is sufficient to pass constitutional muster. Do you really doubt that private gun sales affect gun trafficking across state lines?

and I doubt you can show an example of it. That said, you are projecting.

Kind of like the Commerce Clause...

but if you buy a gun and take it across the border of a state don't you need to get a background check?

Most states don't register handguns or gun owners. If you move into one that does, like IL for example, then yes. But moving into most states with handguns, bought privately or otherwise, requires nothing at all.

Now if I already live in state X I cannot legally buy a gun in state Y, but it is the purchase that is illegal not the return home. If I live and buy in state X then move to (non-registered) state Y all is well. I just have to buy all future guns in state Y while I live there.

they would have done it in the first two years of Obama's presidency when they controlled both houses of Congress.

Another assault weapons ban is very important to some in our party most of whom live in large gun unfriendly urban areas of our nation and are largely unfamiliar with gun owners and the gun culture in our nation. A new assault weapons ban also enjoys strong support from the national media that, of course, is also largely centered in cities that have strong gun control and consequently have little or knowledge about firearms and their owners. That's probably why it is in the Democratic platform. Leaving it out would cause consternation and criticism among "liberal" Democrats.

Actually passing another assault weapons ban is probably politically impossible which is why it was never tried during the first two years Obama was in office.

Any attempt to pass such a law will lead to skyrocketing sales of these weapons which are already selling like hotcakes. The gun industry would love the profit and the NRA would have ammunition to continue their attack on Democrats who strongly support gun control. Many good Democrats could lose their seats to Tea Bag Republicans in close elections in the future.

I might even finally break down and buy a black rifle for my gun collection. Such semi-auto modern rifles are extremely accurate and adaptable and could come in handy for hunting feral hog on my property if I move to a more rural area of Florida. Currently I live in a small town in northern Florida and do not hunt. I prefer a handgun or a shotgun for self defense in such an environment and I personally enjoy target shooting with handguns rather than rifles as it is more challenging to me. I currently own no firearms, either pistols or rifles, that would qualify as an assault weapon.

We do need to have an open honest discussion about firearms in our nation. Such a discussion would require not calling assault weapons machine guns which they are not and involve the use of statistics that show that such weapons are rarely used to commit violent crime. This would probably be impossible since the media is prone to distort the facts about firearms and many politicians who support gun control lack knowledge on the subject or simply love to use hyperbole as a tactic. "Honest" is the important term and is defined as "Characterized by truth; not false"

It is also important in such a discussion for those who support stronger gun control to avoid calling facts and statistics "NRA talking points." Facts and statistics on the gun control issue often support the NRA's view but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong.

I do support this statement in the platform: (Notice that I eliminated the part about the assault weapons ban.)

folks on both sides of this issue I suppose. It isn't a large group of Americans that feels strongly one way or the other but, of that group, the pro-second amendment crowd has proved to be a highly motivated and effective voting block and lobbying force. I'm sure there were plenty within that group that voted for Obama the first time too as a referendum on Bush and Iraq. I think they'll probably not vote for him this time and this plank just confirms what they already knew.

Larry "wide stance" Craig, Louie "terror babies" Gohmert, Darrell Issa...

It funny. It's not just that gun nuts are overwhelmingly Republican, it's that they tend to be the looniest of far-right-wing teabagger Republicans. Is there any right-wing teabagger who isn't a second amendent nutjob?

So Craig thinks he has to stay in the closet. Other than being from Idaho and staying in the closet, what has he said that put him in the same category as the other clowns.

Are you suggesting that being a closeted homosexual excuses his homophobia?

as a self loathing gay person, he lashes out to look straight and maybe even "cure himself". Unfortunately, he is not that unusual. Does it excuse it? No.
But then, it doesn't excuse over generalization and patronizing rants that anyone doesn't think exactly as you do are ideologues or morons either.

so, yeah it is.

It's one of our collective albatrosses, and it should have been eliminated years ago.

false.

Since this is the platform Obama is running on as Democratic candidate he needs to rein in his staff, Holder. et al, or they will cause voters to question whether Democrats are committed to the party's platform.

like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole --- meh.

the platform should be broad and deliberately vague, imo.

that phrase narrows the scope and is not necessary at this level of politics.

badly stated turn of phrase, I wonder who was responsible for it.

Kind of average for a political statement though.

We support X, but not so little as to scare independents and not so much as to energize our opposition.