? For Anti Gun control Democrats

Who do you plan to vote for in the democratic primaries? Since I am in favor of some gun cotrol laws, I am curious about how you all feel about the candidates. If you are planning on or leaning towards a candidate you disagree with on the issue of gun control, could you explain why?

of course if there were not bullets, we'd have to bonk each other the head with the guns.

Yes, I am leaning toward Dean right now and realize that he is anti-gun control. The short answer is that you can't get everything you want in one person. Also, I think gun laws are better than they were 15-20 years ago, and I doubt ANY dem will roll back those protections. (I still don't see why a hunter needs an AK-47)

but I hope no one wants to get into that argument with me. I am just curious how people are leaning.
So you are for gun control laws but will accept Dean's position on the issue because you see him as having other strengths. I am starting to think that way too.

"I still don't see why a hunter needs an AK-47"

Why do people need to have a car that can go more then 75 mph?? (Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette etc.)

Where does the 2nd Ammendment mention hunting??

but that's not what the second amendment really means anyway...it was never about duck hunting.

As a life long Democrat, I've been backed into a corner by what I see is an ever increasing threat to the 2nd Amendment over the last 20 years. I'm not the only one; I've got several relatives in various states who feel the same way.

What I don't understand is why the Democratic party has gotten swallowed to a degree by this issue. The fact remains that it hurts the party in the South and West, and even in places here in the Northeast.

The Assault Weapons Ban is a case in point...I doubt 10 people here, other than gun owners, could explain the effects of the ban, what weapons are "banned", and what effect 10 years of the ban have had on crime. It's a symbolic issue on both sides, but as a gun owner, the symbolism to me is that it's just the tip of the iceberg...it starts with "what do you need THAT for?", and goes from there...and there is no doubt to me where "there" is if certain people get their way.

The problem is that the Party seems to make this a litmus test, like abortion. Since what we're talking about is a cosmetic ban in the first place, why should various presidential candidates feel compelled to make such a big deal about it, and make it such a big issue. Dean gets slagged because he didn't support it (although he now "conveniently" supports the renewal), but there's no way he'd be doing as well in New Hampshire if he was a huge gun control supporter.

It's just like California's ban on .50 rifles. Not ONE crime has ever been comitted with one of these 35lb behomoths, but the state feels compelled to ban them anyway. Then there's the recently passed ban on "plastic guns", which don't exist!

To me, the party has been sold down the river on this issue...what we really REALLY need to do is work all entities to enforce existing law, and put some teeth into the punishment of repeat violent offenders, who commit the bulk of firearms related crime anyway.

The average non gang banger, non drug dealing, non career criminal American citizen has a statistically higher chance of being hit by lightening, attacked by a shark, or eaten by cannibals than being killed with a gun.

At this point, Dean is the ONLY candidate I could even consider voting for. And Clark's smart ass remark about joining the Army if I want an "assault rifle" REALLY annoyed me...it shows a truly cavalier attitude toward the 2nd Amendment from someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution. If that's what I can expect from him as Pres, well, no thanks!

I don't know why I bother trying to talk to other Dems about this issue, but every once and a while someone gets it. It used to be, my main voting issue was choice...I'm rampantly pro choice...even though I don't really have a dog in that fight, as they say around here. Now, though, it's becoming gun control...and I can tell you, if I have to make that choice, I will.

I hope this doesn't degenerate into the usual idiocy surrounding guns around here...I'm trying to respond in a truthful manner, and as someone who has voted Democratic his whole life. I don't know that I can bring myself to ever vote Republican, but I can sure decide NOT to vote if it comes down to it.

There are hundreds of thousands of Dems around the country who feel the same way I do, I'd guess. A lot of them live in West Virginia and Tennessee...states we need if we want the White House back.

We were able to pursuade the Senate Public Safety Committee that there was no compelling reason to ban them.

They probably dont.

For those pesky facists, thugs, and criminals however, an AK-47 should be adequate.

Just because "hunters dont need it". Doesnt mean it should be taken away from everyone else.

Besides, the AK-47 fires the same round as the SKS, at the same rate and can accept a detachable magazine. Other then appearances, they might as well be the same rifle, and as far as terminal ballistics, practically are. But the SKS looks much more benign, so it's left alone, and thats all there really is to it.

He's the best Dem out there on gun issues. He could be better but at least he will slow down the gun laws.

and was going to use an AK-47-based rifle to do it. Why? Because it's relatively light, accurate enough, reliable, it has low percieved recoil, and not something that being in the field would bother. When I bought it, it came with 5 round magazines, so it would be completely legal.

BTW, in the primary, I'm voting for Dean.

The relatively low velocity to bullet weight keeps most of those pesky twigs and blades of grass from spoiling your shot.

I'm undecided thus far. Threaten to take my guns, I take my vote. T0 borrow from an earlier poster, if a candidate doesn't trust me with firearms, I can't trust him/her with nukes, the military, ATF, FBI, U.S. Marshalls Service, etc. They already have me outgunned!

I'm in line with the founding fathers. Read their memoirs, commemtaries, etc. You'll note that the Second Amendment was proposed in consideration of the fact that the Brits had previously attempted to confiscate firearms from the colonials. Too bad it didn't work. heh heh heh

I am against most forms of gun control (I do agree with the notion that deer hunters not need armor piercing bullets or assault rifles however). But it's not a big issue for me. If a candidate would like to be pro-guns, all the merrier. Maybe he can steal some NRA votes.

I'm leaning towards Dean because at this point, I think he may have the best shot to beat Pretzelboy. I'm not a one-issue voter - I've even worked on the campaigns of Democratic candidates who were NRA members. I want the candidate who will give us the best chance to WIN!!!!

CO Liberal wrote:

"I want the candidate who will give us the best chance to WIN!!!!"

Amazing.

CO Liberal, I haven't even finished my first cup of coffee, but I hereby declare you my Short-Duration Personal Savior for the day.

:toast:

....than pro-gunners who refuse to vote for ANY Democrats because SOME Democrats favor gun control. Unfortunately, some people have bought the entire NRA package of lies - hook, line, and sinker.

don't ALL of the other candidates favor gun control? I'll vote for any Democrat who DOESN'T support the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, if you can find me one.

What exactly is the NRA "package of lies", btw?

Not all gun owners belong to the NRA...I don't, for example. They're too damned liberal bwahahahahahahaha.

but I'll support whichever Democrat emerges....even Al Sharpton or Joe Lieberman.

But if you'd vote for him cheers to you too.

:toast:

not just for gun control, but gun control being a huge factor. Dean had the balls to stand up to Bush when it was the least politically popular thing to do. He also doesn't attempt to try and please everyone which only results in looking weak.

Dean has my vote!

and even though I am anti-gun I am realistic enough to know that no candidate will ever agree with my stand on guns which is to outlaw them completely especially handguns. I grew up in Chicago and watched my father treat handguns like toys and at 16 I had a good friend die from gunshot wounds. I have always been petrified of guns and in my 20s I moved to Northern Wisconsin where guns are a part of so many lives up here because of hunting. Now in my 40s I have learned to live with the gun issue where it concerns hunting but I am still very much anti handgun. WI's Repugs have been trying to push thru a conceal and carry law but Gov. Doyle has vetoed it for now. I am very very against conceal and carry because I don't think it's right that only a small fraction of the WI population should feel safe. I for one would not feel safe knowing anyone could have a gun hidden under their coat. Now instead of fearing some I must fear all because of the unknown factor. I say if people want to carry a hand gun they should be made to wear it on their hip so I have the option of seeing them coming and be able to go the other way. I think because of Gen. Clark experience with weapons he would have a respect and better understanding of them and would be best suited to determine what would work best for gun owners and non gun owners alike.

but anyone could have a gun under their coat NOW, but chances are, it would be someone who is inclined to use it in a criminal way. Legal CCW does NOT turn the streets into Dodge City; 40 some states now have some form of "shall issue" law on the books, and their experience has been the opposite, actually. And criminals are gonna be armed anyway; ignoring/avoiding the law is part and parcel to being a criminal!

I love when I see the signs at shopping malls saying I can't carry in there. (VA is "shall issue", and I have a permit). It will keep me out, but the guy coming in to rob some store, or shoot his ex wife's new boyfriend, will just laugh at it as he walks right on by.

The whole point of CCW is so that anyone who CHOOSES to "feel safe", can. It's much more Democratic than places likey NY and California, where a movie star like Sean Penn can get a permit, but you couldn't. Or NY, where certain "important" folks travel under armed guard at taxpayer expense, but the average Joe can't defend himself.

"I am very very against conceal and carry because I don't think it's right that only a small fraction of the WI population should feel safe. I for one would not feel safe knowing anyone could have a gun hidden under their coat."

Criminals already carry concealed. After all, they're criminals, which by definition means one who breaks the law, even the "no CCW" law. So you're saying you'll feel safer when only the criminals are carrying guns?

Given the current state of affairs, anyone could ALREADY have a gun hidden under their coats. Unless you can instantly spot a lawbreaker, you have NO idea who is illegally carrying concealed now. Sounds like you're already living in fear.

In case you didn't know this, several ( I know of at least 3) "high-profile" school shooting rampages have been stopped by law-abiding people with guns. I'm pretty sure that a criminal planning on going on a shooting rampage isn't concerned about breaking a "no CCW" law, since murder is a much more serious crime. Or would you prefer to simply make criminal activity safer for criminals? Because that's what banning CCW does.

I used to like Kerry, based on hearing him on NPR a few months back. He seemed like he knew what he was doing, had foreign policy experience, served in the military, understood that Husssein was the crap we had left in the Middle East kitty litter box that needed cleaning, and had a vision for America.

Then he began touting his endorsement by numerous anti-gun-owner groups like the "Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (by imprisoning all firearms owners)," the "Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence (by enacting DC-style nationwide gun control laws)," and the "Violence (BanHandgunsNow.org) Policy Center." Kerry began his double-speak about how he's a hunter and has no agenda to eliminate *all* firearms ownership. His public embrace of groups that *are* seeking to ban all firearms ownership was the poison pill for me.

Clark seemed like another good candidate, until he came out and publicly opposed shall-issue CCW laws, as were passed in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Missouri this year. This is a slap in the face to all law-abiding citizens who are willing to undergo extensive firearms and legal training, a deep criminal/personal background check, and registration with the state (all things that supposed "gun-safety" groups claim to want in the name of "public safety") before exercising their right to decide when to discreetly carry a handgun on them for their protection. Clark's opposition to shall-issue CCW seemed to me to be an example of the elitest military officer mindset that I suspected he harbored, one that assumes that "peons" (i.e. anyone not in your social class)need policing by their "superierors" (i.e. some sort of authority figure with unfettered discretion over the lives of the subordinates) for their own good.

I was favoring Dean because of his firearms stance (i.e. background checks on all firearms sales), and his vision for America. I was willing to overlook my disagreement with Dean's Iraq stance. Now, however, with the Hussein capture, Dean's public statements on that capture seem to be really wishy-washy. His support of capital punishment that I heard on NPR was not very well-reasoned. I think my Dean support is wavering now, but that would leave me with no first choices for candidate.

I consider it to be a human rights violation when there is any attempt to use the coercive power of the state to force me to be 100% dependent on the state for my personal safety (by stripping my ability to defend myself with a firearm from crime/violent racists/terrorists/space aliens/whatever), after that same state has succesfully repeatedly asserted that it has no legal obligation to provide me any protection. That is the core basis for my views on gun control.

I won't vote for a NRA whore like Dean. It wasn't an accident the latest Confederate flag flap came when Dean was talking about guns.

be voting for bush?

The only reason he governed a state with liberal firearms laws is because that is what the residents of VT wanted, no ifs, ands, or buts. Dean had nothing to do with it. He talked the talk to get elected, but that's it. Now that he is trying to curry national favor, he is proposing something that I think is EXTREMELY dangerous: he wishes to let states set their own levels of restrictions of rights listed in the Bill of Rights. That's right, the states get to decide how much a "right" applies there. Think about the implications. Sure, he is saying that about the Second Amendment, but once the precendent is set, where does it stop? It doesn't matter to me which one of our federally sanctioned rights he wants to give away to the states; even one is too many.

Unlike a lot of other liberals. But I also believe that as a society we have a right to make some exceptions and to take some safty measures. I do agree that some of the anti gun aggenda is extremist.

I guess what I am trying to figure out is whether we can have a real coalition between the two factions and take back some states we lost in 2000. To do that do we need an NRA approved candidate and if we do run that person, will it make a difference?

per se, it's just that some of the more onerous (to gun owners) proposals out there are all from Dems...like John Conyers, who wants to ban just about every semi-auto out there.

There's a certain amount of guilt by association there, to some gun owners...throw in Schumer and Feinstein, the poster folk for Gungrabbers R Us lol, and you've got a pretty big hump to overcome convincing gun owners not to fear the Democratic party.

But I also believe that as a society we have a right to make some exceptions and to take some safty measures.

I didn't know assault weapon crime was so widespread.
MY god, I can only cringe at the thought of how many bayonettings occured last year. *Shudder*

Lastly, this isn't a needs based society. That's what makes us so wonderful, the freedom to choose whatever the hell we want, from Corvettes to $800 AR15s. No one needs a 62 inch tv, but we, can buy it because we are free to do so. Emphasis on FREE to do so.

I cannot take another 4 of him. The gun issue for me was and remains a non-player. I am a Dem party loyalist first and a single issue supporter last. I truly believe that the Republican agenda is so dangerous to our democracy in fiscal and overall civil areas that I refuse to consider my personal stances on single issues such as abortion or RBKA with the democracy at stake.

Only my personal opinion - I fully respect others who are passionate on those stances.

...that would make me stay home on election day.

What a hunter does or doesn't need is not the issue. The Bill of Rights defines what the Federal Government can not do, not what individuals can or can't do, or own in this case.
I may seem like a single issue voter to some, because when deciding whom to vote for I have to start somewhere, I start with trust. If someone running for public office can not trust me with the firearm of my choice, how can I trust that person with my grandkids' freedom?
If the candidate fails the trust test, he won't get my vote, if he passes on that, then we move on to other issues.

At this time there is not one candidate running for president, including Bush that passes the trust test.

Well stated position. I apprecaite your candor. I agree in principle with your statements. They are indeed food for thought - good solid food.