[Atticus]

It seems that both Presidential candidates prefer to avoid “the gun issue”. Should President Bush avoid the topic entirely …or should he voice his support for concealed carry laws and other gun related conservative viewpoints as part of an, “I’m for empowering people not government” message. It seems odd that both candidates feel they will lose votes over the same subject...particularly when we face the threat of terrorism being carried out on US soil.

[Gordon Fink]

George W. Bush and John Kerry both support gun control. President Bush just supports a little less of it than Senator Kerry. If either were serious about homeland security instead of state security, well … you know the rest.

~G. Fink

[Standing Wolf]

It seems odd that both candidates feel they will lose votes over the same subject...

Both will, and both deserve to, because they're both strong believers in the right of government to infringe the Second Amendment rights of the citizens.

[tyme]

Not to mention infringement of the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

Kerry and Edwards were both present in the Senate when it voted 99-0 to condemn the 9th circuit Pledge decision (Newdow). And these people are liberals, allegedly for the separation of church and state? (Spare me the "Sep. of church and state isn't part of the constitution" lecture.)

Kerry is a Catholic, and his wife is a devout Catholic. I'm not convinced Kerry would appoint pro-abortion, pro-stem-cell-research justices. They're more likely to be middle of the road on religious issues, and radically liberal in support of socialist policies.

[RealGun]

Bush, in a recent campaign speech, declared his belief that the RKBA is an individual right. I didn't hear of Kerry making a similar statement and cannot imagine him doing so.

[Bad Words]

Gun control isn't an issue for most people, whether they are for or against it. We see liberty or a lifestyle or protection from thugs, but most just see a gun. Politicians will talk about whatever voters are thinking about. And hopefully they'll talk about what's important from time to time, even if it's not in the minds of the masses. For every election there are a small number of issues that are discussed. Right now it's abortion, Iraq, church and state, gay marriage. Last time it was mostly about campaign finance. Next time it may be government debt, or maybe it will be guns. What's important depends on who you ask.

[cuchulainn]

It's like that old saying: a lot of dogs turn around three times before lying down, but it still sometimes won't rain for month.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bush, in a recent campaign speech, declared his belief that the RKBA is an individual right.

Right to do what? The answer to that is where the rubber hits the road, and I don't know what Bush thinks it's a right to do. I can name any number of things he thinks that right doesn't protect:

Twenty year olds owning guns.

11 round magazines.

Ugly guns.

Private party transfers.

There are people out there who seriously believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms. To keep flintlocks stored in a lock box at a gun club, to be specific...

[RealGun]

You will notice that I didn't attribute any meaning to what he said, but I will take it from a President, when Courts try to declare otherwise. He is lending the leverage of the Presidency, on top of that of the Attorney General, to try to sway legal opinion, when the subject comes up again. It also puts Congress on notice about how he will view a bill on the subject. He also speaks for the Republican Party. There is no doubt what Cheney's position is, based upon his speech to the NRA a few months ago.

Yeah, it may be pandering to gun votes, but it is better than being totally ignored by the Dem platform and negative remarks by John Kerry.

I have no delusions about what Bush can or will do about gun control, by I am not putting my money on the Dems.

The main reason I posted was in response to the statement that Bush and Kerry were the same on RKBA. I believe Bush was responding directly to the persistent Federal Court rulings that hold that RKBA is a collective right. This is a fundamental issue that must be settled, or we have no 2nd Amendment, and gun ownership is a mere privilege, supported only by gun lobbying. For all I know, Bush was asked by one or more of our organizations to make such a statement.

[txgho1911]

Most minds are set by age 25. Those that turn require decisive and personalized instruction or experience.
Taking anti to the range is direction. Just don't put a Desert Eagle in his/her hands for the first experience.
One question to apply ones self to is how to logicaly convince individuals how gun control is a failure. Even citing the failures of the UK, AU, and the Canadian measures and where they fall short. The US is blamed for arms smuggled into these countries with increasing frequincy.
Another direction is the state legislature and educating your districts rep and the party's leadership in specific points of conflict and confusion in your states laws.
National platforms like the race for the WhiteHouse brings the question to the minds of millions of brainwashed and conditioned people who are educated against the 2nd amendment.
Basic Constitutional study in the country's schools and universities along with every argument we know as true against gun control will turn the masses against the 2nd or even worse - nuetral.

How does a verry vocal and loud minority like 2A proponents get legislation voted down or expired like the AWB. The truth in an individual right the 2nd protects.

[Atticus]

My point is that Bush has covered his butt on the AWB by not letting it come to him. He's on the record for saying he'd sign it...but who knows if he would have or not. I'm not familiar with his history as the Governor of Texas...but I think he signed the CC bill. I don't see what he has to lose by simply saying that he believes in the power of individual responsibility and freedom, while pointing out Kerry's twenty year record of radical gun control endorsments.
I just don't see how it can be a negative for both of them....when the issue was a major loser for Gore.

[Harry Tuttle]

http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/news/article/0,19912,696240,00.html

OL: Do you support a renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, a bill that outlawed certain models of semi-automatic firearms? Why or why not?

Bush: The best way to reduce gun crime is to vigorously enforce existing gun laws, so that guns are kept out of the hands of criminals but are not denied to responsible and law-abiding citizens. I support reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, but I oppose additions to or expansion of the ban.

My administration has proven that enforcing existing gun laws is a highly effective strategy of combating violent crime. My administration has devoted over $1 billion, since 2001, to Project Safe Neighborhoods, my initiative for enforcing existing gun laws, and has succeeded in increasing the rate of gun crime prosecutions by 68 percent during the last three years. At the same time, the violent crime victimization rate has dropped by 21 percent.

Kerry: Yes, I support extending the assault weapons ban. The weapons that are the subject of this ban are not used for hunting, and extending this ban will not infringe on the rights of any Americans to hunt, including those who hunt with semi-automatic shotguns. It will, however, help police deal with the violence that we are witnessing in too many American cities. Today, one in five law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon. Innocent citizens continue to be caught in automatic weapon crossfire on city streets. Simply put, I stand with the police officers who have called for extending the ban. Police officers who put their lives on the line every day should not be outgunned by the criminals they are seeking to stop.

OL: In your view, does the Second Amendment protect the individual’s right to own firearms? Why or why not?

Bush: I firmly believe in the right of an individual to bear arms, as granted by the Second Amendment. My administration filed a brief in the Supreme Court asserting that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms and is not limited to protecting state militias.

Noted in a recent court decision, “the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.” This same conclusion has been reaffirmed by numerous legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum.

Kerry: Yes. As a hunter and a gun owner, I believe that law-abiding American adults have the right to own firearms. As President, I will defend the Second Amendment right of law-abiding American adults to own firearms.

[Don Gwinn]

he weapons that are the subject of this ban are not used for hunting, and extending this ban will not infringe on the rights of any Americans to hunt, including those who hunt with semi-automatic shotguns . . .
". . . . which I know is true because I felt compelled to sponsor a bill to fix that oversight a couple of years back. . . ."
:rolleyes:

[RavenVT100]

Kerry doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to guns. Many of the so-called assault weapons, probably more than half, are used for hunting game. Almost all are used for target shooting. None of them are machine guns, like he has stated numerous times that they are.

I really, really wish someone would call him on this, somehow. I want him to face up to what he's said, and the fact that it's not true. It's frustrating the hell out of me that this man is allowed to lie through his teeth like this during a presidential campaign, and not one person---not one--has been able to ask him why he's talking about machine guns when these weapons are anything but.

This isn't about opinion, like whether or not it was a good idea to invade Iraq when we invaded it, or how many allies we need. This is about frank and elementary technical facts about a law, and which guns it covers. Kerry has lied to the public about what the law does, when he probably knows full well that it has zilch to do with MGs.

He needs to be called on it. The fact that everyone seems to be ignoring it doesn't make it any less of a big deal.

[Smurfslayer]

If this issue were to arise in the last debate, it will determine Bush's future.

If you notice above, the pres indicated he supported "reauthorization" of the (then) current ban. I sincerely hope the NRA-ILA has worked with the president's staff to help him come up with a satisfactory answer other than supporting a new ban of any kind.

I agree above with the sentiment of Bush "trusting the people, not the government"... etc. If pushed, Bush can easily point to the US House of REPRESENTATIVES where the bill stood absolutely no chance. None. nada. zero. zip. In fact, the House already voted to overturn it once. The public does NOT support more gun control, only the extremely vocal, extremist socialist minority of liberals do. The House clearly indicated no chance for this bill to pass, and based on that the pres. can point to this as a clear indicator of public opinion, and the will of the people. Since he trusts the people, the right thing to do is evaluate existing laws for their effectiveness (using the CDC report among others as input), keeping the laws that work, eliminating the laws that don't.

If he falls back to the "I support reauthorizing the '94 ban", the president will lose the race. The NRA will not endorse him, nor could they with any credibility, and moreover, the NRA membership will see that there is essentially no difference ( perception, even if not reality ) between the two candidates, and they will not be motivated to come out.

[Daemon688]

What if the gun control topic was brought up with......terrorists?

Somewhere along the lines of:

"Recently in a news report Al Quieda is suspected of legally buying firearms in the US to conduct attacks. How do you plan on preventing this from happening?"

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Along those lines... Al Qaeda & Co. sponsors a dispersed team of snipers in the USA to do what John Muhammad & Lee Malvo couldn't - pin the whole country down for months or years.

- pdmoderator

[Smurfslayer]

Gotta sieze that terrorist mantle before the enemy occupies that real estate. Disarming the law abiding citizen does nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of the unlawful or evil, and creates a territory of victims waiting to be killed.

The sniper weapon was stolen by criminals. Why punish the citizen who wants to protect his/her family? I think the president should say that he supports and defends RKBA - an individual right - when he was governor, he signed legislation that permitted trained citizens to carry firearms to protect themselves, and crime went down. Just like everywhere else it's been passed. It leaves Kerry with nowhere to go. Polls you ask? The only _real_ poll, is the representatives that people send to Congress, and the overwhelming majority of the House opposes banning homeland defense rifles.

I don't think it's practical for the enemy to attempt to arm themselves here, and start guerilla campaigns. Take a look at the shining examples:

Muhammed & Malvo? Jail.
Mir Aimal Kasi? Jail.

It's unlikely that any such idiots would get blasted by a ccw, but, it sure would be poetic. More likely run over by a cell phone chatting minivan driver...

I'd be far more concerned with the possibility of car bombs for terror effect.

[RavenVT100]

The angle that could be used is very simple. None of the weapons that terrorists use abroad (automatic rifles, rpgs, and explosives) are available to civilians here. The "assault weapons" are really not practical for dealing damage like hunting rifles are, yet Kerry "likes" hunting. So what'll it be?