Statistics on Gun Ownership

40% of all US homes have guns

81% of Americans say that gun control will be an important issue in determining which Congressional candidate to vote for.

91% of Americans say that there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownership;

57% of Americans say that there should be major restrictions or a ban.
Child-Safety Locks

In 1996, 140 children died after being accidentally shot.
About 1,500 children are hurt by guns every year.

"Trigger Locks" require entering a combination to use the gun (or some other locking method); they are intended to reduce inadvertent use by children or other unauthorized users.


Background Checks

The "Gun-Show Loophole" means that there are no background checks when purchasing guns in a private transaction.
Guns sold at gun shows through dealers ARE subject to background checks; only those sold privately are not.


Gun Control Buzzwords

The biggest component of the Gun Control debate is whether existing gun laws are sufficient, or whether more gun laws are needed.

Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.

Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.

Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.

Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.

Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.

Positive mentions of the NRA (the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun rights lobbying group) implies support of gun rights, while opposing the NRA or "taking on the gun lobby" implies support of gun restrictions.


Amendment II to the US Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (1791)

I think we should ease up a bit on this issue because i think it is costing us elections. I know numerous people that agree with alot of the issues Democrats stand for but cannot vote for them because some of the extremists that want "To take their guns away." You see that stat above? 40% of US homes have guns... that is a big chunk. 81% say that gun control will be an important issue in determining who they are going to vote for.

Good idea, wrong reason, why not give it up because it is the right thing to do?
The vast majority of gun owners are in no way contributing to social violence, no matter how hard anyone spins the facts.
I personally feel insulted when I get painted with the same brush as those who abuse their freedom, and I know I'm not alone.

Most definitely. The crusade/jihad against the possession of modern-looking civilian rifles by the LAW-ABIDING not only does absolutely nothing about gun crime (the most common gun used in crime is the illegally possessed .38/.357 caliber revolver, taking BATFE trace data as proxy for that variable), but it is absolutely guaranteed to infuriate, organize, and mobilize a large portion of America's ~80 million lawful gun owners--including the most committed and energetic advocates on the issue.

It is my opinion that the DLC/DNC would never have fallen for the "assault weapons" bait-and-switch to start with had they had more people in advisory positions who were familiar with firearms and Federal firearms law, or had they treated the Chicken Little rhetoric from the prohibitionists with even the merest skepticism and actually checked their facts...

I wrote at some length about this here a while back and on Democratic Underground:

Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What?

The response even on DU was overwhelmingly positive.

ABC Nightline last night finally reported on the last minute senate discussion and vote in late July to give immunity to gun manufacturers and gun sellers. They said it was under the radar for most of the press and their reporting is better late than never.

Polls show that a large majority of the citizens want to keep the same gun laws or add more gun restrictions. However, the senate voted with the gun lobby which has about 3 million members. The NRA threatened legislators both democrat and republican. Several democrats including the two senators from WV voted for the bill. The House will vote for it again in September. Bush will sign it and have another right wing victory.

The conclusion of the ABC reporters is that the democrats have given up on the gun issue as a "moral issue" and have other things to work on. They also said the senators were pressured to finish their business so they could leave on break.

I have yet to see any MSM coverage of this bill that accurately described what it does. The bill does NOT grant immunity to makers of defective products; it does NOT grant immunity if someone was negligent; and it does NOT grant immunity if someone does not follow the law.

All it does is to stop places like the District of Columbia from trying to enact a de facto national ban on 13-round handguns and rifles with protruding handgrips, by holding any manufacturer who sells such a gun to civilians strictly liable for any harm caused by a gun-using criminal in D.C. (where such guns are already illegal), regardless of whether the manufacturer was negligent or not.

If ANY other industry was the subject of baseless lawsuits like this, you'd see legislation like this as well.

How would you like it if, say, the state of Alabama decided to hold manufacturers of suction curettes strictly liable for ANY and ALL complications from abortions (regardless of whether the instrument was defective or not), allowing anti-abortion activists to sue medical equipment manufacturers for billions and thereby drive them out of that market? Would you view legislation limiting their immunity to negligence and product defects only (which is what the gun-liability law does) favorably or unfavorably?

Typical right wing response to bring up abortion in an unrelated topic.

Remember that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is a trial attorney, one of those elitist trial lawyers that right wingers hate. He however went to bat for rich and powerful corporations rather than poor people, so he is forgiven for making millions off of big corporations.

What do you think the gun-liability bill did? It didn't block product-liability suits; it just blocked localities from enacting new, national gun control through the tort system. Allowing states and municipalities to enact national bans on things they don't like via torts is a very bad precedent, and if the topic were abortion, or books Jerry Falwell disapproves of, or whatever, I doubt anyone would support it. Abortion is indeed an unrelated issue, but allowing municipalities to enact national bans on things they don't like via torts is NOT an unrelated issue, and that was the point of my post.

BTW, if I were a "right winger," I wouldn't be here talking about civil rights, I'd be on Free Republic defending the Patriot Act and arguing for machine-gun-toting raids on state-authorized medical cannabis growers...

A third of registered Democrats, and at least that many independent swing voters (the category I happen to fall into), own firearms. Smearing all of us as "right wingers" just because we've studied through the issue in great depth and come to a different conclusion than you have is quite unjustified.

Gun prohibition is not a leftist issue, nor is gun ownership a rightist issue; fundamentally it's a Communitarian position, not a progressive one. The Democratic party didn't adopt a prohibitionist stance until the late '80's/early 90's, and it has been a disaster for the party.

Typical counterproductive attitude. I have progressive ideas on many social issues, and feel threatened by the lurch to the right that we are seeing now, but Diane Feinstein/Charles Schumer types scare the crap out of me on the RKBA issue. I have about given up trying to explain my stance, I am tired of being described as a pot bellied, wife beating Neandertal.
Heritage, you don't need to change your views regarding firearms, but you should see that this issue is divisive, and a waste of time. It doesn't matter whether or not you personally understand my defense of RKBA, but it is time for you to concede that it is obviously of importance, to me, and many others.
Heritage, do you want me as an ally, or do you want me as an opponent? The choice is yours.

It would be productive for the Democrats to focus on the many issues that will do them good, rather than the one that will do them harm.

Maybe you are right--I actually don't know. In purely pragmatic political terms I think it was successful a few years ago to be in favor of more gun control. Now the public seems to be leaning in the other direction --although I have no real way to know.

In any case I think that the general public sentiment is that there should be some regulation of weaponry. On the other hand generally I think most agree that there should be some individual freedom to keep and bear arms. How broadly or narrowly to construe these laws and freedoms seems to be the issue.

When talking about arms I am assuming people are talking about weaponry in general and not just firearms.

This is my first time (except for one brief glib post) checking into this discussion. I think I am pretty mainstream because I don't really think about the 2nd ammendment very much and don't know much about firearms.



my background is from my father (who you know about) who was a dead on shot even after he lost a lot of his eyesight. He regularly won VFW turkey shoots into his 60's. He was also very anti-firearms in any home--felt that they caused more harm than good. I loved shooting rats in the dump with my neighbor when I was a kid . I frequently see the results of gun play at work -- from street conflicts that 20 years ago would have been settled by fist and bottle fights.

I am no doubt on the more restrictive end of the spectrum -- although I have not put very much thought into it. I think it is an issue for reasonable variance.

no data -- expertise and little familiarity just putting in some impressions
ps: not to be a rude hit and disappear poster but I may not be checking in to this very often.

cherokeebob - I didn't respond to any of your posts.

It's nice to have you visit our little forum, Brookie. Fresh input is always welcome. For this type on venue (CG/CS), you probably could be considered "mainstream" with your views. A more conservative forum might label you a little extreme.
With a little research most would understand that regulation of firearms by the government has been going on since 1934.
Most gun owners don't have a problem with common sense regulation such as age limitations, background checks, etc. The problem comes about when certain regulations don't answer the problem for which they were intended...namely gun violence. Feel good legislation only hurts law abiding gun owners, and helps the criminals. Registration is another idea that's popular with the anti-gun crowd. The fact is that all new and used guns purchased from a dealer are traceable, and there is no way to register guns that were bought and sold through private transactions.
Education and vigorous enforcement of existing law is the best way to deal with crime. Prohibition in any form is doomed to failure.

Methinks they should back off completely unless they can get a constitutional amendment passed and enacted revoking the Second Amendment. Why are the guarantees of one of the constitutionally guaranteed rights less sacrosanct than any of the others, eh?

'Course Democrats can just put it in the party platform that they don't believe in the rights of the individual as outlined in the Constitution. Methinks that degree of honesty might sway some people.

Should we regulate free speech, even just a little? How 'bout a waiting period to enjoy our privacy or be secure on our own property? Maybe we should require registration of church members? How 'bout requiring self incrimination when it's more convenient for us? Methinks y'all get the idea.

From all those wantin' to further restrict Second Amendment guarantees I'd like to hear your answers on the above. Where do we draw the line, and why the hell is there even a line, eh?

Re drawing the line I have a broad question. Are we talking about weapons in general or only firearms?

What other weapons are we talking of here. Knives?...Swords?...Throwing Stars? Most states have laws on the books for instance concerning concealed knives....blade length...no automatics (Switchblades), etc.

Been quite a while since I went through the Federalist Papers and the like, but methinks "arms" in the context of the intentions of the Constitution's drafters related only to firearms the individual could use. Consequently that's the line I'm referrin to, eh?

Doubt seriously in their wildest dreams the framers even thought someone might wanna take away anyone's swords, knives, tomohawks and the like, so they weren't addressed, eh? Too bad they weren't smart enough to foresee the far left wing of today's Democrats or methinks they mighta been tempted to go even further.

Firearms only, in the current context. (I assume you are speaking of military hardware like artillery, tanks, grenades, missiles, etc. when speaking of "weapons in general"?)

IMHO, the Second Amendment refers only to arms which can be "kept and borne," and is generally applied only to firearms, but you could probably also assume it to include edged weapons.

FWIW, all heavy weapons are very tightly controlled by current Federal law, the National Firearms Act of 1934, which restricts all machine guns and other automatic weapons, all weapons over .50 caliber/12.7 mm (a few hunting firearms exempted, like .729 caliber shotguns), explosives, missiles, sound suppressed firearms, disguised firearms, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, smoothbore handguns, etc. etc.

Current "gun control" discussions are exclusively about civilian firearms, e.g. non-automatic weapons under .51 caliber that meet the minimum barrel length restrictions and other criteria of the National Firearms Act.


A lot of the reason it seemed pragmatic to be in favor of imposing new restrictions a few years ago is that the anti-gun lobby greatly misled people regarding what is covered by current law and what their proposals covered. For example, a lot of people thought that the 1994 "assault weapons ban" covered automatic weapons like military AK-47's and Uzi's, and of course there is broad public support for restrictions there. The problem is, actual AK-47's and Uzi's are tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act that has been on the books since 1934; the "assault weapons ban" actually affected civilian handguns holding over 10 rounds (just like those police officers carry) and modern-looking CIVILIAN firearms like AR-15's and such, which are extremely popular among gun owners at large. Of course, once the ban was enacted, it was inevitable that those affected by it would find out what it really covered, and it motivated gun owners into political action like no gun-related issue has before or since.


Of course, and I am a gun owner and gun enthusiast am in full agreement. I support background checks, bans on criminal possession/use, and most of the huge array of restrictions embodied in the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, etc.

However, I think that ANY additional restrictions be focused on CRIMINALS, rather than enacting more and more limits on law-abiding voters like my wife and I who have never had so much as a speeding ticket.

A .38 caliber revolver in the hand of a criminal is dangerous. The modern-looking self-loading rifle with a 30-round magazine sitting in my gun safe is no threat to anybody (well, anybody that's not breaking into my house ), and trying to ban MY guns because of their modern styling while ignoring the old-fashioned .38 revolver in the CRIMINAL's waistband is totally and completely counterproductive.


Welcome to the discussion!

That makes sense to me--I guess since second ammendment arguement always seems to revolve around guns as opposed to other weapons like poisens and explosives. . I can't be the first one to bring this up. I am getting too far off topic to go further, since this thread is about the Democratic party's stance. I think I have had my small say about that so far--I don't hold very strong view on what would be appropriate polical positioning

At the risk of shameless self-promotion, I wrote a lengthy suggestion in this thread.

I have no bone to pick with you, friend, it is just that after decades of fighting about this issue , I tend to get a bit testy.

Agreed, and I would add that giving things up "to win elections" is the disingenuous and insincere tactic that got the DLC and John Kerry a fourth place finish (behind ABB and Somebod E. Else) in a two man race. It's a self serving fraud, and the people know it. Cheney the DLC; what have they done for us except give the White House and both chambers of Congress back to the Greedy Old Party? Whose side are they on, anyway?

Hello benEzra:

I'm back for now. Yes! Dems must do more than just bend a little on this issue. They MUST take their cue from Democratic gun owners (rather than the politically connected "chiefs-of-police" who often look down their collective noses at gun owners).

I have no desire to vote Republican, and my old Libertrian Party holds some very atavistic positions on business. No matter. Perhaps we'll be hearing more from our party leaders regarding this topic before the 2006 elections.