Skip to main content

The article is from 4/20, but I have not found it referenced here on DK. I will not re-post without permission, so here is the link.
Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument

Kontra expounds on six changes Democrats who champion gun control could make to demonstrate a clearer stance in the debate.

If you then win the election, do not go on to fully support gun bans in two US cities – Chicago and D.C. – in which law-abiding citizens are disarmed, citing them as models for gun policy while trying to convince the rest of the country that you really aren’t interested in banning their guns. (Guess which two US cities you’re most likely to be killed by a gun in.)
New rule: If you don’t know how guns work, you don’t get to craft legislation about them. There is nothing so embarrassing as watching a Democratic politician who has never held a gun in their life attempt to talk about why and how they should be regulated.
Children are no longer just pawns in the gun control story. They are now integral players. Sometimes the stories play out like Obama’s photo-op above. Sometimes they were never supposed to be stories in the first place.
The comments are worth a read as well.

Originally posted to DispositionMatrix on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM PDT.

Also republished by Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm still waiting for some of the gun loving (3+ / 0-)

    trolls who lurk at DK to post a few specific, feasible actions that could help reduce gun violence.  They don't because they just run empty on the empathy department.

    There are plenty of good proposals for things that need to change from Democrats.  I suggest you hunt down 4 of them and promote them.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:55:14 AM PDT

  •  that was a great read (11+ / 0-)

    thanks for posting it.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:58:43 AM PDT

  •  I was wondering if this article would appear here (16+ / 0-)

    It contains a lot of excellent information that many here would be wise to pay attention to.

    Tipped and Rec'd

    •  The article does contain some good information... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy, Cedwyn

      ...and I too cringe when I heard well-known backers of gun regulations get it so very wrong on technical matters that they should know backwards and forwards after supporting certain legislation for years.

      But the article also contains some squat piles. An example:

      It claims that the ACLU "came out against universal background checks, citing the record keeping on law-abiding citizens as a 'significant' privacy concern."

      This is a distortion of the ACLU's actual stance on the matter. Chris Calabrese, as quoted by the Daily Caller:

      “However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.

      “The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

      Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”

      In other words, the ACLU DOES NOT oppose universal background checks per se.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:30:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You can post three paragraphs inside the body (13+ / 0-)

    of you diary that come from that link. Pick your favorite three and edit said diary. Republishing to RKBA.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 12:41:16 PM PDT

  •  Not so much. (7+ / 0-)

    No. 4 and 5 are wrong.

    Background checks stop around 150,000 gun sale transactions per year. That number should be higher. The law that prevents felons, people under restraining orders due to domestic violence, the seriously mentally ill and adjudicated drug addicts is 44 years old and widely supported by both gun owners and gun control advocates. We've never even tried to apply it to every gun transaction or all the denial classes. It's a crime that we don't.

    BTW, about 5,000 felons are sentenced each year for possession of firearms. And you can argue all you want about whether we should be chasing down every felon who tries to buy a gun unsuccessfully, but as for me, I'm happy with their denial of a gun purchase, kind of like the minor trying to buy beer who gets denied.

    As for the NRA, they are about as close to aiding and abetting violent criminals as any legal organization can be. They are an extremist group. They incite paranoia and disseminate anti-government propaganda. And their support for a few token. Democrats don't hurt themselves at all by calling out those whacked out assholes.

    That said, the one correct item in No. 4 was the record keeping requirement, the only time I am aware of that the ACLU has acknowledged that actually is a 2nd Amendment. That was Schumer I think. Over-reaching. Very bad idea.

    Meanwhile, here are four tidbits of advice for us gun owners trying to explain their position:

    1. Don't deny there is a horrific gun violence problem in this country.

    2. Don't argue that because good solutions aren't perfect they shouldn't be enacted.

    3. Although the 2nd Amendment does in fact mean what we say it means and is a political right (not a practical one) let's admit the original intent is kind of stupid. We give medals to guys who shoot guys down like dogs in the street (or the fields of Shiloh) who try 2nd Amendment remedies.

    4. Understand that the NRA is as much against health care reform as it is against gun control as it is for a permanent aristocracy in this country.

    5. It is more acceptable that an occasional law-abiding, sane and safe citizen is temporarily denied his ability to buy a(nother) gun than to loose the occasional John Holmes or Seung-Hui Cho on the public.

    6. Finally, think about something. Is your liberty more in danger from someone using the government to raise your standard of living or from someone using the government to raise his own?

    "It is in the shelter of each other that the people live." -- Irish Proverb

    by Our Man in Twisp on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 12:54:19 PM PDT

  •  It is an excellent article. (14+ / 0-)

    The problem is, apparently, getting some of the more anti-gun Democrats out there to acknowledge that they just may not have the support to ever get some of the things they'd like to do accomplished.

    If they would take a truly honest look at what it is they want to get done and listen to some people who don't agree with them, they might realize that there are, in fact, compromises to be made.

    Until then...?

    It's just not going to happen at all...

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:04:15 PM PDT

  •  Always take good advice from a sworn enemy .... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark Mywurtz

    especially that which follows the format of

    "I was gonnna be your Bestest Friend, but now ... because of that -- I ain't gonna !"

  •  6 ways to fail like a gun nut (0+ / 0-)

    1.  All guns are NOT the same.  You'd think of all people, gun nuts wouldn't want to play stupid on this one.

    2.  This is just plain crap to try and disqualify a bunch of legislators, even though this rule clearly doesn't apply to other types of legislation.  What about understanding parenthood or education or any of the other aspects of life disrupted by our pathetic gun policies?  The author of this article doesn't hold the Republican Protectors of Gun Rights to the same standards.

    3.  Stop using children???  We hear about the poor gun guys who would be rendered disarmed and helpless by big mean Obama, but the people who are ACTUALLY disarmed should be left out of this???  Fuck you!  No, sorry.  FUCK YOU!  Let's just stop talking about everything inconvenient to the gun absurdists.

    4.  Background checks with loopholes aren't background checks at all.  The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee convenience, expedience, or regulation loopholes.

    5.  Sure.  I'll also treat the Koch Bros funded Tea Party like a grassroots movement by your logic.  NOT.  The NRA is synonymous with the republican party, they primarily fund republicans, and I can't believe the people who are reccing this article aren't at least calling out this point since those same people CLAIM to be democrats.  The republican and conspiracy-nut-enabling NRA and it's complicit membership can eat me.

    6.  If you were truly democrats, you think you'd be more realistic about this stuff...

    Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

    by Mark Mywurtz on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 06:52:09 PM PDT

    •  The use of "gun nuts" is a counterproductive... (9+ / 0-)

      ...comment that does absolutely zero to persuade anybody who doesn't already agree with you about anything.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 08:32:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

        but I gave up on persuasion.  Hundreds of gun diaries and debates since Newtown and before and have you seen any of these guys change their positions on anything?  

        All I've seen is a doubling-down on Freedom Gunz and "here's a parroting of nearly everything the NRA says plus a claim that I don't support the NRA".  I'm not buying it any more than I'm buying the 6 points in this article.  

        My comment was directed at a specific cadre of posters who basically only come here to pile on gun threads and have never been persuaded of anything beyond the positions they came here with.  

        Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

        by Mark Mywurtz on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 03:22:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I did. I was against UBCs. Now I'm not. nt (4+ / 0-)

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 05:08:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think there are plenty of terms that... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, KVoimakas, noway2

          ...can be used to describe what you're talking about without dropping what amounts to a collective diagnosis of lunacy. I know some gun-owners I wouldn't go onto a range or hunting with because they are reckless with safety, whose views of gun politics are stubbornly entrenched in right-wing conspiracy theory, and who believe they should have the right to own RPGs. I also know plenty who are careful, support reasonable gun regulations and are more left wing than 90% of the people at Daily Kos. "Gun nuts" seems to be applied to all of these, despite their wide differences of opinions.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:57:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What terms are you suggesting? (0+ / 0-)

            You have divided gun owners into 2 groups:

            I know some gun-owners I wouldn't go onto a range or hunting with because they are reckless with safety, whose views of gun politics are stubbornly entrenched in right-wing conspiracy theory, and who believe they should have the right to own RPGs.
            I also know plenty who are careful, support reasonable gun regulations and are more left wing than 90% of the people at Daily Kos.
            The 2nd group describes me...but due to the bold-faced text, not most of the RKBA crowd--a couple of whom I would bet the farm aren't "democrats", yet they inexplicably persist here.  

            So no, I'm not applying "gun nuts" to everyone--just the supposed progressives on here who are vehemently opposed to the most sensible gun regulations and believe conspiratorial junk about registrations leading to confiscation, blah, blah...

            Registering at DK just days after Newtown and doing nothing but trolling gun diaries also well qualifies for the label "gun nut" IMO.  

            Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

            by Mark Mywurtz on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 06:55:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So those who don't agree with you... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deedogg, noway2, Wordsinthewind, KVoimakas

              ...or not really Democrats or Progressives, and are deserving of personal insults, which are generally considered to be against site rules.

              How very Progressive of you.

              Not a particularly intellectually honest debate tactic, but hey, if it's all you've got...  

              The sad thing is, it's something we more commonly see from Republicans.  Odd, that you seem to embrace it so happily.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:07:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Who defines... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ..."sensible" as well as the more used "reasonable" and "common sense" as they pertain to gun restrictions? Following Sandy Hook, the president placed "assault weapon" bans and magazine bans under the latter two. Since neither ban would have addressed the SH shooting, I disagree that they are either "common sense" or reasonable." So who determines reasonableness authoritatively in this regard?

              Additionally, who defines the political term "assault weapon," which has thus far represented a growing list of firearms varying by state? If "assault weapon" has an actual meaning, why does the number of types of firearms deemed "assault weapons" keep growing?

  •  "If you don't know how guns work" (0+ / 0-)

    That article was a mixed bag, and that point in particular is going to put people's backs up.

    If you don't know how guns work, you can still figure out that it's a bad idea for domestic violence perpetrators to have them. You can still figure out that licensed dealers should be able to account for their inventories.

    You can even "draft legislation", as long as you assign it to a staff member who has or has access to technical knowledge, or limit it to non-technical issues.

    It's when the proposals address particular firearms technology that it's critical to understand the technology.

    The legislator who said that magazines get used up when you fire from them, for example, should stick to other aspects of gun regulation. I don't blame gun owners for being scared by people like that: when they see someone brandishing legislation with her eyes closed, they feel like we would seeing someone holding a gun with his eyes closed.

    The rest of it? I encourage people to drop the "with us or against us" frame of thought and pick out the useful parts.

    Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

    by Dogs are fuzzy on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:48:53 PM PDT

    •  The problem is... (5+ / 0-)

      that firearms are, mechanically, very simple machines.  And it doesn't take a lot of effort to understand the basic concepts behind them.  

      So when someone wants to ban "shoulder things that go up", or thinks that magazines will be used up over time, I then recall that they are also in charge of: Auto safety.  Industrial work-place safety.  Medical care.  The Federal Budget.  Internet communications.  Fucking Space Exploration!!!!!

      And it makes me want to scream.

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:21:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Over the weekend, CNBC had a show called (6+ / 0-)

        America's Gun, the rise of the AR15.  It too would be a good show for many, on both sides of this issue, to watch.  The end segment of the show was about a guy using an SLA machine (commonly called 3d printer) to design both magazines and a lower receiver for an AR15 and releasing the designs to the public domain.

        This is part of where understanding technology comes from.  According to the show, one can now buy these SLA machines for under $1k.  Fifteen years ago, I worked at a company that had a small model made using this technology and the small model cost $30K.  The lower receiver is the only serialized part on an AR15 and the only part that is tracked or requires a background check to buy unlike the upper receiver, barrel, etc, as in the parts that are under a lot more mechanical stress.

        The point that needs to be understood is that the way technology is moving forward, prohibitions are utterly doomed to failure.  Attempts to legislate away evil thoughts by restricting physical objects absolutely will not work.  The only type of solution that has a prayer of working is one that addresses the root causes of violence.  

    •  If you're going to make a criminal offense of (6+ / 0-)

      something, which is what "bans" are, you sure as fuck better know what you're proposing to throw people in prison for.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 05:16:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The author misses an obvious addendum to the (5+ / 0-)

    "mixed messages" section.

    Anti-gun Dems have a ritual expression: "we support the 2nd Amendment - we respect the importance of hunting in some family traditions".

    Aside from implication that these ignorant anti-gun Dems believe that the 2nd has anything to do with Grandpa's wooden-stocked hunting rifle or shotgun, it speaks to a long-term strategy: drive a wedge between the hunting and outdoorsman crowd and the pistol & black rifle crowd.

    Except it's predicated on a false hope that arises from celebrating one demographic shift, while ignoring a related one.

    We are inundated with reminders that the fraction of households with guns is down from the 1950s - from the 75% range to the 45% range. Proof, they imagine, that gun owners - and hence, gun rights voters - are growing fewer to the point where one day their rights may be steamrolled over without a second thought.

    But those surveys also reveal something: the fraction of gun owners who primarily own a weapon for "hunting" versus "self-defense" has also undergone a major shift. Formerly, hunters dominated. Now, self-defense owners dominate.

    What has happened is that politically sway-able "hunter who hates the pistol/black rifle crowd" has not only been dwindling, but this demographic's disappearance accounts for most of the decline in gun ownership. The self-defense crowd, the people who go to the polls to punish politicians who go after their pistols and black rifles - that population has stabilized, and isn't going anywhere.

    So the ridiculous "put the anti-gun Dem in an awkward shotgun photo-op" strategy has become an increasingly empty and risible pander, because the group to which it is pandering has largely gone away. The gun owners who remain are the pistol/black gun crowd, for the most part. And we're not fooled by ridiculous talk conflating the right of a free people to be armed with the sport of hunting.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 06:04:14 AM PDT

    •  If the prohibitionists are hanging their hopes on (4+ / 0-)

      the theory that the number of gun owning households is in decline, they are undoubtedly going to learn the meaning of the term cold comfort.

      Lets look at a few examples.  Note, these aren't total figures of gun owning people or households.  These are the number of permits issued per year allowing people to have guns in public and often times purchase without an NICS check.  About 20-25% may be attributable to renewals based upon a 4-5 year license expiration.  This means about 75% of the figures represent an INCREASE in gun ownership or a previous gun owner wanting to possess one in public.

      Texas2012: 146,367 concealed carry licenses issued
      Texas2011: 143,725 concealed carry licenses issued

      Oklahoma: in 2012 issued 39.875 concealed carry permits, which was an increase of more than 15,000 over the prior year.  

      Kansas:  As of Feb 11,018 permits issued so far this fiscal year and it expected to exceed the 12,408 issued last year.  The month of Feb alone saw 3,573 permits issued.  

      The data from my own state, NC is a bit dated, but as of two years ago (2011), the capital Wake County - Raleigh had 15,372 permits.  As of June last year, it was up to 19,144.  Two years ago, the total was 228,072 and assuming 25% growth (typical to modest) this number should be upwards of 350,000 permits.  

      Ohio: Record number of permits issued.  More than 78,000 issued in 2012, of which 12,160 were renewals.

      To those who claim gun ownership is on the decline, absolute data from the states taken from a sample set several orders of magnitude greater than the contrary polling says otherwise.

      •  I don't know that your cites show anything (5+ / 0-)

        about gun ownership rates in general, but more about the kind of gun owner that is dominant. It's consistent with the fact that the "hunter/varminter" is no longer the relevant model for gun ownership, and pandering to them is pandering to a Norman Rockwell painting. Defensive gun owners are the rule now, and pictures of Dems awkwardly posing as hunters no longer has a wedge effect among gun owners.

        I've seen some polls putting gun ownership rates in the 1950s and earlier at well higher than today (though I'm turning up empty on a search), but Gallup basically only shows a decline from ~50% of households in 1960 to ~40% of households today, but even there, it's not a trend so much as what looks like decadal-level fluctuations around 45% (higher in the 60s, 80s, and 00's, lower in the 70s and 90s). So I'd say gun ownership rates, per household, have been more or less stable for 50 years.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:41:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I will add (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robobagpiper, noway2, KVoimakas

          That when I go to the range, I often see groups of friends who have come to shoot targets together. Not to sight in hunting rifles or necessarily to practice self-defense, but simply to have fun shooting targets.

          Tangent: I went to an outdoor range for the first time in years a couple of weeks ago. Quite a few families there teaching kids to shoot. (Mostly daughters if the 50 yard and 100 yard lanes were a representative sample.) Also a lot of Asians and Latinos on the range (including me and my wife in the latter category).

          •  The statistics on concealed carry by demographic (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, andalusi

            will be interesting to watch over the next few years.

            •  Wondering what new California laws will do (0+ / 0-)

              All the new gun regulation bills in the Senate and Assembly will probably pass and I suspect Governor Brown is going to sign a lot of them and maybe all.  

              That will mean no new semiautomatic rifles, severely curtailed handgun options (the state roster is ridiculous: it doesn't matter if a handgun passed the safety test, if it's a different color/finish than the actual handgun tested, it's not kosher to buy), make it impossible to find ammo for more rare calibers and drive prices through the roof for even common calibers, and generally make gun owners jump through a lot more hoops.

              I know it's trite to point out that criminals won't abide by gun laws, but in the case of the laws proposed, they really, really won't and some legislators have even admitted it. No, this is the same tactic used against tobacco products: the death of a thousand cuts. Make it too much of a bother for new people to want to get into the habit and punish those who do buy and use tobacco products.

              Whether one thinks that's a good or bad thing depends on (1) how one feels about gun ownership and (2) how one feels about social engineering through penalizing legal activities via legislation. But regardless of how one feels about the process, that is the clear goal in my state at least.

              •  It is enough to make one wonder (0+ / 0-)

                If there isn't something to the talk of those who say that the nation is going to split into a few federations based upon ideology.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site