http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3659.html

Democrats Still Hate Your Guns
by Doug Hagin
30 July 2004

Why have the Democrats stopped talking about gun control?

Ah, remember the good old days when Democrats put their true agenda right up front where guns were concerned? They did not pull any punches or fudge their opinions at all. They did not believe in the right of Americans to own guns and they gladly said it. A Democrat seeking public office was sure to put their Liberal views on guns and the Second Amendment front and center. The Democratic Party was all too happy to put their anti-gun ideology at the very front of all their campaigns.

Nowadays though all that has changed. Today finding any Democrat who will even touch the subject of gun ownership with a hint of their true feelings is tougher than finding honesty in a Michael Moore film.

So why have Democrats largely stopped talking about gun control? Could it be they have changed their former views of guns? Perhaps they have actually read the writings of the Founders and finally realized that yes, yes, yes, the Founders did intend to protect the right of Americans to own and carry guns? Don’t bet on it my friends.

The fact is the Democratic Party and its supporters are still the anti-gun rights party. They still loathe gun owners and yes they still look down their noses at gun owners. They still think the Second Amendment is an unnecessary obstacle to their views of America as a semi-Socialist State.

The only thing that has changed is the strategy of the Democratic Party. They are still out to get your gun, make no mistake. They just intend to get them by earning your trust, then sneaking in your back door, instead of kicking down your front door.

The Democratic Party has seen very clearly that being up front about their true ideology on guns is not the way to win elections. So they have learned from their mistakes. Their new strategy on guns is to avoid the topic if possible, and to play fast and loose with their true feelings when questioned about their ideals.

Take John Kerry, for example. He is a decidedly anti-gun rights politician. His record shows it. Yet he has been seen on the campaign trail posing with a shotgun and talking about what a hunting enthusiast he is. So which Kerry is the real Kerry? Put your money on the anti-gun Kerry, my friend. The rhetoric might have indeed changed but the goal is the same for Liberals in America.

The Democratic Party began moving away from their traditional talking points about guns after the 2000 elections. Gun control groups started changing their names to appear less threatening to gun owners. Names like Handgun Control morphed into the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? After all, don’t we all want to curb crime? But the name change is only a face lift. The end goal of Sarah Brady and her Liberal followers is still to criminalize private gun ownership in America. And the political party that backs that agenda is the Democratic Party.

They can stop talking about gun control. They can pretend they respect gun owners and their Constitutional rights to own guns. They can stop their rhetoric about guns being a plague on America, and they can separate themselves from the Million Mom March, but their true ideals remain.

They are still a liberal party with liberal goals and ideologies. They still would erase the Second Amendment if they could. All the photo-ops with Kerry and a shotgun are not going to change his heart or the aims of his party. All the sound bites of Democrats espousing their love of hunting and their promises to protect gun owners' rights are not worthy of our trust.

This new show of support for gun owners is no more than a façade. Democrats have learned this lesson well; they can not be honest about who they are and get elected in this country.

So watch and listen to the Democratic Convention and hear what these people tell you. Look carefully at the bill of goods they will attempt to sell you. Then compare their speeches there with the rhetoric and hyperbole Al Gore and Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer have been spewing about your guns and their designs on them.

The truth is they have not changed, they have just finally come to grips with America’s overwhelming rejection of their far-left leaning views on firearms. The truth is still there and very easy to see. The Democrats still oppose concealed carry despite the benefits these laws have yielded. They still wish to limit the number of guns you can buy per month. They still want to create a database and register your guns. They still want to allow frivolous law suits against gun manufacturers. They still are taking aim at you and your right to self-defense.

If they win in November you will lose, freedom will lose and the Constitution will lose.

The best argument I ever heard against gon control was from a liberal friend who said, "Do you really want the only the police and army be the only people to have guns?". And she had a point, the right for citizens to bear arms ensures that we don't become a police state. However, I see nothing in the Second Amendment that forbids proper regulation. In fact since the first words are "A well-regulated" a case can be made that regulation is required.

If you want to drive and own a car you have to take a test for a license and register the car. In many states you even have to buy insurance in order to register the car. I don't see why the same minimum standards could not be applied to gun ownership. The insurance companies would love it and even the process of licensing and registration could be subcontracted out to the NRA.

I see you fell into the driver licencing trap. Let me explain.

A driver licence, the insurance, registering the car and the testing that goes with getting a driver's licence is if you drive your car on the public roads . If you own a car, but only drive on private property, you do not need a licence to drive that car, you don't need to register that car, you don't even need to insure it.

Now, let's go to owning a gun. Most people buy guns for personal property protection. In other words, they keep it in the house in case some one breaks in to do harm or take property that is not theirs.

So if it is on private property why should you licence a gun? :?: :?:

James, how old are you? I get the impression you are relatively young.

In New York and most other states you are still required to register and insure a car and that you are a licensed driver since there is no way a buyer can 100% insure that the car will only be driven on private property and never on public roads.

The same hold true of guns. No one can ensure a gun will never be carried outside the home. Licensing and registration is just responsible gun ownership.


And the whole home protection issue is a fake anyway. Do you have any back-up to your claim that a majority of guns are sold for home protection?

Well here are some facts about guns in the home:

Every day in the U.S., 77 people die from gun violence, including 16,586 completed suicides; 10,801 homicides; and 776 unintentional shootings.[1]

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[2]

40-43% percent of households own guns. This means that an approximately 44 million Americans own an estimated 192 million firearms.[3]

One out of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked.[4]

Nearly all childhood unintentional shooting deaths occur in or around the home. Fifty percent occur in the home, and 40% occur in the home of a friend.[5]

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.6[6]

Children and Teens
Firearm injuries in the US are the third leading cause of death among children aged 10-14 and the second leading cause of death for ages 15-24.[7]

For teens 19 years and under in the year 2000, we lost 1,776 to firearm-related homicide; 1007 to firearm-related suicide; and 193 lives to unintentional shootings. One young life lost every 3 hours.[8]

Storage
In 1998 estimated that 43% of households with children ages 3-17, keep at least one gun in the home. Of this 43%, 24% have a handgun and both a rifle or shotgun; 23% keep a gun loaded some of the time; and 28% keep at least one gun hidden and unlocked.[9]

Have you ever thought to ask?
According to a study by Peter Hart and Associates and The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 42% of parents polled revealed that they would be extremely concerned about their child's safety if they knew there was a gun in the home of their child's friend. When asked if they ever thought to ask:

61% of parents reported that they never thought about asking;
30% reported that they have asked; and
6% thought about it, but never asked.[10]
A gun in the home increases the likelihood of an intentional shooting, particularly among children. Unintentional shootings commonly occur when children find an adult's loaded handgun in a drawer or closet, and while playing with it shoot themselves, a sibling or a friend. The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years is 9 times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.[11]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes:

1 CDC, NCIPC, Web-based Injury Statistics Query Reporting System, 2002.

2 Kellermann, AL et al., "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." The Journal of Trauma, Infection, and Critical Care. Volume 45, No. 2, August 1988

3 Police Foundation, Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use, 1996

4 Police Foundation, 1996.

5 National Safe Kids Campaign, 1997.

6 Kellermann AL., Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995.

7 CDC, NCIPC, Web-based Injury Statistics Query Reporting System, 2002.

8 CDC, NCIPC, Web-based Injury Statistics Query Reporting System, 2002.
9 Peter Hart Research Associates and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, 1998.

10 Peter Hart, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Parents and Kid: A Nationwide Study, 1998

11 CDC, "Rates of Homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children - 26 industrialized countries." Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report, 02/07/97; 46:5. 101-105.


BTW My birthdate is on my profile. But while we're trading personal info, what's your IQ. I get the impression that you are relatively stupid.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

So, by your reasoning, the two thugs who mugged me at gunpoint on 102nd St. and Amsterdam Ave. in New York should have had a license for their guns, right? :P

Maybe they did. Did you ask to see it?
Maybe one owned the block so he was technically on his own private property and doesn't need to license it.

I was curious about that.
When we say well regulated, how would that apply to KBR, or some of the groups training private contractors of the combat variety?

Yes, that's the very first thing I did, James. They held their snub-nose revolvers low so as not to draw attention, and I said, "Good lord, do you have a license for those things?" They looked at me in disbelief for a moment, scratched their heads, and then the tall, 250-pound one said, "Aw, shucks, ma'am. You mean we need to have a license for these things?" I said, "Of course you do, young man! You're on public property! You are required in NYC to have a license to carry a firearm." They scratched their heads some more, whispered something I couldn't hear to each other, and then apologized to me for threatening me with unlicensed guns. They then threw the guns in the nearest garbage can so as not to be accused of committing a crime with unlicensed weapons. As they turned to walk away, they said, "Thank you, ma'am," tipped their hats, and helped an old lady across the street.

And that's the truth. :Y: