May 2003, Dean claims Gun Control would not stop homicides.


PDA






w4rma
January 3, 2004, 10:22 PM
Mark M. Smith, Publisher
Ellie Dixon, Managing Editor

Dean In The North Country

Wednesday May 28, 2003

While stumping in the North Country last weekend, former Vermont Governor and Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean made an interesting remark about guns.

The former governor said in Sugar Hill, N.H., that: "We have few homicides in Vermont and gun control would not have prevented any of them."

Whatever else Howard Dean says during Campaign '04, he's certainly right about that issue.
http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/editorials/story/881887793

If you enjoyed reading about "May 2003, Dean claims Gun Control would not stop homicides." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Justin
January 3, 2004, 10:32 PM
Too bad he supports that there "assault weapon" ban, as well as confiscatory levels of taxation and wealth redistribution.

geekWithA.45
January 4, 2004, 12:05 AM
With "sensible gun laws" plastered all over his site, he's not fooling me.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws


believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them.


Strike One!


The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed.

Strike Two!

On McCain-Fiengold (gutting 1A):
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_campaignfinance


Last year, public disgust at the influence of money in politics led to enactment of the McCain/Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I supported that law because we needed to stem the rising tide of "soft money" -- the vast, unlimited and unregulated checks from corporations and wealthy Americans that purchase influence. I'm glad the Supreme Court has strongly endorsed this ban on soft money, which will help reform the cash-for-access culture of Washington. Even with the McCain-Feingold law in place, there is so much more to be done.


Strike 3! Yer Out!


bzzzzt!....thanks for playing, Howard Dean, be sure to collect your consolation prizes on the way out.

Standing Wolf
January 4, 2004, 12:10 AM
Five and a half beers short of a six-pack.

Lone_Gunman
January 4, 2004, 12:24 AM
How is any of this different than Bush?

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 12:30 AM
How is any of this different than Bush?It's not, IMHO. They don't differ on gun policy as far as I can tell. They are both moderate on guns. They are on opposite sides on civil liberties/rest of the Bill of Rights/Patriot Act (I & II)/centralized executive branch power (http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0401/03/politics-25195.htm) though.

CleverNickname
January 4, 2004, 12:31 AM
A blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile. Or in Dean's case, a nut finds a nut. :D

fallingblock
January 4, 2004, 01:11 AM
Dean is a demented socialist, and Bush is not?

:D


************************************************************
"They are both moderate on guns."
************************************************************

Not at all, w4rma...

Dean's Party is the antithesis of moderation where guns are concerned:eek:!

Dean will not in any way be able to control the DNC and the hoplophobic left/center of his party.

A vote for Howeird Dean is a vote FOR gun control.

What Dean says is window dressing only. :scrutiny:

Thumper
January 4, 2004, 09:31 AM
How is any of this different than Bush?

In the type of Supreme Court Justices they would appoint.

You like Ginsberg's taking the UN view of your civil rights? That's right up Dean's alley. No thanks. :barf:

"a nut finds a nut..." :D

greyhound
January 4, 2004, 09:33 AM
"We have few homicides in Vermont and gun control would not have prevented any of them."

Props to Dr. Dean for stating the truth.

However, didn't he also say that Vermont was different than Chicago or LA and that states should decide their own level of gun laws?

That's not likely to appeal to pro-gun voters in MD, NY, CA, NJ, MA, OH, IL or other states with oppressive gun laws.

Course I haven't seen Bush lift a finger to call for help to gun owners in those states either. (Actually as far as I know he avoids the gun topic as much as he can).

I agree with W4MA that Dean is about the same as Bush on guns (he just has to talk about it since he is actually campaigning right now. Eventually, Bush will have to answer many questions, especially on the AWB ban).

The reason I would never vote for Dean is not guns, its everything else.

BTR
January 4, 2004, 10:57 AM
As far as I know, one of the few diff. between Dean and Bush on guns is that Dean opposes lawsuit protection, while Bush supports it. Also, I would expect Bush appointees to be more gun friendly.

Lone_Gunman
January 4, 2004, 11:18 AM
Why do you guys have confidence that Bush would make prudent Supreme Court appointments?

Frankly, I think I would be scared of his nominees. He signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill after saying he thought it was unconstitutional.

Should a president sign something into law that he thinks it unconstitutional just because he thinks it is politically prudent?

It just makes me wonder what his SC justices would do.

Please don't interpret my questions as necessarily Bush bashing, but I do think he has moved the Republican party significantly to the left on a variety of very important constitutional issues.

JohnBT
January 4, 2004, 11:40 AM
"While stumping in the North Country..."

I think he's about stumped the whole country. I'm stumped about what he stands for, my friends are stumped too, and it looks like he doesn't have a chance anyway hereabouts.

Where do they get these losers?

John

Lone_Gunman
January 4, 2004, 11:56 AM
JohnBT,

Bill Clinton looked like a loser to me also, but he was president for 8 years.

Mike Irwin
January 4, 2004, 12:03 PM
Why do I have a funny feeling that the unsaid thought in the back of his mind was...

But we have to try.

No thanks, Howie.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 01:15 PM
Lone_Gunman, don't associate Bush's actions with things that the left likes. That guy is not liberal or conservative. He's a neo-conservative and corrupt to the core. His actions, just about every one of them, are to redirect resources back to his big campaign donors (AWAY from small buisnesses) who are usually MULTINATIONAL (not American) corporation owners. <period> Everything else is done for political expediency reasons.

Don Gwinn
January 5, 2004, 01:35 AM
Yes, and the Treason and Sedition Acts were created under which President---Jefferson? People screw up. The best people screw up, and George Bush is no Thomas Jefferson.

However, trying to make it look like Dean is as good on guns as Bush is requires some interesting twisting of the record. In this case, it apparently required W4rma to ignore half the quote. One half of that quote was explaining that gun control wasn't necessary in places like Vermont, but the other half of the SAME PARAGRAPH was his explanation that people like me don't deserve the same rights because we live in different states. States that also contain large metropolitan areas. Because we all know that the Constitution doesn't apply in the big city.

The whole thing was ridiculous. It was as ridiculous as his proposals to raise taxes, his statement that he's not sure Bin Laden was behind 9/11 (which I guess I can understand, since he seems to think that whoever did it checked with Bush beforehand) his demands that the DNC keep his political opponents from attacking his positions, his cynical use of fake religious fervor just as he enters the south, and his flip flops on most of those issues. The guy is not Presidential material.

Mike Irwin
January 5, 2004, 01:43 AM
"Yes, and the Treason and Sedition Acts were created under which President---Jefferson?"

Adams, with the STRONG support of George Washington.

They were largely directed at so-called "newspapers" allied with Thomas Jefferson.

Adams may have been a choad for signing these, but Thomas Jefferson was a first-class :cuss:hole.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 5, 2004, 06:28 PM
It's not, IMHO. They don't differ on gun policy as far as I can tell.

Did you miss any of the several posts where I pointed out that Bush favors legislation protecting gun manufacturers from spurious lawsuits (along with Tom Daschle of all people) and Howard Dean opposes such legislation?

That sounds like a fairly significant difference on gun policy to me. Howard Dean is supposed to be pro-gun but can't get behind a measure that has already been co-sponsored by the Democratic Senate Minority Leader?

fallingblock
January 6, 2004, 03:53 AM
"Bush favors legislation protecting gun manufacturers from spurious lawsuits (along with Tom Daschle of all people) and Howard Dean opposes such legislation?"
************************************************************

And no amount of w4rma's wanting it to be otherwise will alter the fact.
:rolleyes:

ReadyontheRight
January 6, 2004, 02:53 PM
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,565759,00.html
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/0105/ashcroft.html

And I'm sure Dean will appoint an AG like Janet Reno who fully supports RKBA as an individual right. :rolleyes:

There IS a huge difference between the Repubs and the Democrats on 2nd Amendment issues. The Dems are just trying to pander to both sides because they know it lost them the 2000 election.

Mordwyn
January 6, 2004, 03:53 PM
bzzzzt!....thanks for playing, Howard Dean, be sure to collect your consolation prizes on the way out

Oh Ferget the Consolation Prizes........ Heres My Size 13 up yer........

If you enjoyed reading about "May 2003, Dean claims Gun Control would not stop homicides." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!