Skip to comments.Dem platform calls for gun reform, but advocates pan draft as timid
Posted on 09/02/2012 11:01:44 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Dem platform calls for gun reform, but advocates pan draft as timid By Mike Lillis - 09/02/12 01:30 PM ET
The Democrats' approach to gun reform is far too timid and needs a boost of courage to be effective, some leading gun-reformers charged this week.
The draft language of the Democrats' 2012 platform set for a final vote next week in Charlotte argues that current safeguards protecting the public against gun violence are insufficient and urges "an honest and open conversation about firearms."
The document also calls for "reasonable regulation" governing guns, including laws banning assault weapons and requiring all gun sellers not just licensed dealers to perform background checks on potential buyers.
But while the Republicans' 2012 platform addresses such hot-button topics as concealed carry, stand-your-ground laws, high-capacity clips and the reporting of bulk long-arm sales the Democrats' policy statement makes no mention of those thorny issues.
Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a gun-reform group founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, said the Democrats are being far too cautious.
"The platforms are largely irrelevant, except as evidence of how confident a party feels on a topic, and the Democratic language on guns is a terrific example of how completely they blow this issue," Glaze said Friday in an email.
Glaze said the Republican platform endorses policies that "the public, including gun owners, strongly oppose" a reference to recent polls showing broad support for certain guns reforms.
"But at least they take a stand," he said of the GOP. "The Democrats mumble some gauzy generalities.
"Thats irresponsible, but it also happens to be rotten politics," he added. "It turns off their base, and it will not persuade one single Obama hater to sit this one out."
Most of the gun language in the Democrats' draft platform mirrors what was in the 2008 document, but the call for an "open conversation" about reform something that's been all but absent for years on Capitol Hill is a new addition.
The provision marks a subtle shift in messaging for Democratic leaders who have been reluctant to press for any gun reforms or even hold hearings on them for fear of a political backlash.
But the issue has been tough to ignore this Congress in the face of a long series of headline-grabbing shooting sprees stretching back to the very first days of the 112th, when then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) was critically injured during a rampage that killed six people in her district.
Indeed, the draft platform's call for a public debate on guns is pulled almost directly from President Obama's reaction to the Giffords shooting.
"Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence," Obama wrote in a March 2011 op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star. "But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people."
Democrats, in recent years, haven't always been open to such a public airing. Indeed, when the gun-reforming Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) arrived on Capitol Hill in 2009 and started pushing for a gun hearing from the Democratic leaders who then controlled the House, they turned him down.
"I never thought the issue would get to this point where we can't even have a conversation," Quigley lamented last month.
Perhaps with that in mind, even those gun-reform advocates supportive of the Democrats' 2012 platform are approaching with a good deal of caution.
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Democrats are taking "exactly the right approach" by emphasizing the need for an honest debate on the nation's gun laws. But he warned that there's been "a huge disconnect" between what Democratic leaders say about gun reform and what they do.
"If you can't even get a hearing, you have to question how much they mean it," Gross said by phone Thursday.
Even an in-depth and serious debate about gun laws would be ineffective, he added, if lawmakers don't enter into it with open minds.
"That's Democrats and Republicans alike," Gross said.
As was the case in 2008, the Democrats' draft platform pushes back hard against accusations that the party hopes to do away with guns altogether a charge frequently sounded by the National Rifle Association (NRA).
"We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve the Second Amendment right to own and use firearms," reads the draft, which was approved by the Democratic National Committee's platform committee in Detroit earlier this month.
But the Democrats also emphasize a belief that "the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation."
"We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements like reinstating the assault weapon ban and closing the gun-show loophole so that guns to do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible law-breaking few," the draft statement reads.
The NRA has supported more funding for the existing background check system, but opposes extending the filter to non-licensed gun venders.
Asked Friday if the group supports tougher enforcement of existing gun laws, an NRA spokesman declined to comment.
Gross said the Democrats' platform is a stark contrast to the GOP's blanket opposition to new gun restrictions. He accused Republicans of "shutting the conversation down" on behalf of the powerful gun lobby.
"How can an elected official responsible for policy write off the possibility of policy as part of the solution?" Gross asked. "It's galling."
Still, Glaze suggested the Democrats' apprehension in approaching gun issues is as much to blame for Congress's inaction as the GOP's opposition.
"This president has done nothing but expand gun rights, but the NRA will go after him with everything its got," Glaze said. "At some point, Democrats will figure out that silence is not a communication strategy."
In other words, a sweeping firearms ban.
Go ahead, trample the Second Amendment too! That’s the ticket! I got a little pissed when I saw the “media” toadies labeling that last shooter as a “former Marine”. I don’t remember them labeling all of the previous mass killers as “former college students”. The “media” is scum.
Since when has any Democrat engaged in an honest debate about anything?
Where would one even find an honest Democrat?
Yes, they need to be more aggresive and specific. They need to let the electorate know just how far they want to trample the 2nd amendment.
"Now that we have the economy back on track it's time to get some serious business taken care of".
Anything a modern day democrat advocates = control.
I know why it’s “timid.”
How do they define “reasonable”?
In Democrat-land, this means shouting down your opponents, imposing your agenda by fiat, and jailing or killing anyone who objects.
"Reasonable" = you give them all your guns, and they won't kill you.
Forget about it, they aren’t going to be elected, so forget about it
What part of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” don’t these imbeciles get?
ALL gun laws are unconstitutional.
They didn’t call Nidal Hasan at Ft Hood an Islamic terrorist, either,
But that’s what he is.
“Go ahead. Make my day.”
How about government reform?
Democrats always have to lie about their true intentions. If people ever got the straight scoop, they would reject them out of hand. However, we can never rest. Just look at how effective the Dems have been in making homosexuality acceptable in the last 10 years. They never rest until they achieve their objectives. We must fight them on every point and never give them an inch when it comes to gun rights or any other issue. Just when we think we have delivered the knockout punch, they rise again like some hungry zombie.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It all gets very tiring, but we are running a marathon, not doing a 100 yard sprint.
Nothing like firing up one of the biggest single issue voting blocks for the opposition.
Precisely. Can't add a thing to that.
They took all our other rights.
Why not the 2nd Amendment?
...for at least a week.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
They want a ban, but they can’t say they want a ban. Talk is cheap. The votes show their stance. Eric Holder supported the DC ban and wrote an amicus brief for it.
1) evolution out of science books
2) prayer back in schools
3) Should we HAVE public schools?
... then we’ll talk about guns.
That would be a good place to start.
FUBO you lyin sack of human excrement. A $hit Stain in American History.
This is one of the reasons why this week’s Dems convention in Charlotte will be nothing more than a FREAK SHOW.
Zell Miller. And that was when he broke with the DNC.
exactly! the definition of Dem in the dictionary is basterds!
Lost me here. I'm not aware of anything that Obama has done to recognize our 2nd amendment rights.
Is he referring to "Fast and Furious?"
0bama has expanded gun rights to Mexican drug cartels. And he also gave them the guns. So Glaze's statement is actually true.
But this time, they are going down for the count.
They may lose this election, but, at best, all we are doing is binding this zombie for a little while. We need a cure to fix their particular brand of stupid. None is on the horizon.