Democrats for guns. (yeah right)

Status
Not open for further replies.

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
Democrats FOR GUNS
Thu Apr 29, 6:23 PM ET Add Op/Ed - Ted Rall to My Yahoo!


By Ted Rall

Why Kerry Should Stand Up for the Second Amendment


Ted Rall



Related Links
• Ted Rall's Editorial Cartoons



NEW YORK--"Law-abiding citizens of the United States have the individual right to own a firearm," Dick Cheney (news - web sites) told the National Rifle Association's annual convention on April 17. Should the Democrats recapture the White House, Cheney warned, that right would be imperiled. "John Kerry (news - web sites)'s approach to the Second Amendment has been to regulate, regulate and then regulate some more." NRA first vice president Sandra Froman echoed Cheney's campaign pitch to gun owners: "There is no greater threat to gun ownership than John Kerry as president." If Kerry campaign officials thought their candidate's Vietnam resume or membership in the NRA--he enjoys hunting as much as any red-blooded American--would inoculate them on the gun issue, they were as badly deluded as the folks who thought Saddam had WMDs.


The polls are clear: The outcome of this year's presidential election hinges on the economy and the war in Iraq (news - web sites), not guns. And while most Americans believe that they enjoy the right to carry firearms, they also favor government regulation. Nevertheless, Kerry would be wise to break ranks with his party's liberal base by declaring his enthusiastic support for the Second Amendment.


A polarized electorate neatly divided between the two major parties has created a high-stakes political climate in which relatively low-stakes "values issues"--partial-birth abortion, flag burning, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance--may determine the outcome of such weightier matters as whether the United States ought to wage preemptive war. Had Al Gore (news - web sites) convinced 270 Floridians that he would have been more likely than Bush to allow them to keep their guns, after all, we wouldn't be facing a projected $6 trillion federal deficit.


Besides, abolishing handguns is a lost cause. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, roughly 70 million Americans own more than 200 million guns--with four to five million new weapons manufactured annually. Even if Congress authorizes police to break down every door in the country to confiscate them--a task our military can't carry out in occupied nations subject to martial law, like Afghanistan (news - web sites) or Iraq, let alone in Wyoming and New Jersey--the gun genie is never going to get stuffed back into the bottle.


The best argument for coming out as a pro-gun nut relates to the need for an adjustment to the long-term strategy of the Democratic Party. For too long, both parties have treated the Constitution like a Chinese menu. Republicans whittle away at the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and smear opponents who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. Democrats rail against the states rights expressed by the Tenth Amendment and absurdly argue that the placement of a comma reflects the founders' original intent to limit gun ownership to members of 18th century militias. Aside from its fundamental intellectual dishonesty, our politicians' take-some-leave-others attitude deviates from most citizens' belief that every section of the Constitution holds equal weight.


Constitutional purism lies at the heart of libertarianism, one of the three main strains of American political thought--the big ideas that unite the overwhelming majority of American voters no matter where they live or how they vote. Two other primary impulses, liberal compassion and fiscal conservatism, also resonate with the electorate. (Bush sold himself as a "compassionate conservative" to co-opt the Democrats on caring; Clinton balanced the budget to steal away GOP prudence.) A party capable of synthesizing these three grounding impulses could form a virtually invincible majority for decades to come. And Democrats, forced into becoming the de facto party of fiscal conservatism, are currently in a better position than Republicans to adjust to such a majoritarian strategy.


Democrats, however, still need to make the libertarian case. That's where guns come in. Accepting and promising to defend the Constitution as a whole, including the Second Amendment, could jumpstart the return of the American left from the fringe to the mainstream. Kerry's endorsement of gun rights would not only neutralize a key GOP values issue; it would serve as a cultural signifier that he doesn't view hunters and other gun aficionados with (as Democratic political consultant David Sweet put it) "an urban, sophisticated mentality that sneers at their way of life."


(Ted Rall is the author of "Wake Up, You're Liberal!: How We Can Take America Back From the Right," coming next week from Soft Skull Press. Ordering information is available at amazon.com.)

link
 
Nice idea, but.....


A) Kerry's record on guns is astounding, and no matter what he does, he will never have any credibility on gun issues.

B) For the Democrats to truly make a libertarian case, they'd have to dump a heck of a lot more of their Leftist baggage than their institutionalized gun bigotry.

Mr. Rall seems to think that if the Dem's flipped on the gun issue, they'd suddenly have instant libertarian credentials.

I don't think so...it goes a lot deeper than that. You can't put a fresh coat of paint on rotten wood and declare the house sound. It just doesn't work.
 
Had Al Gore (news - web sites) convinced 270 Floridians that he would have been more likely than Bush to allow them to keep their guns, after all, we wouldn't be facing a projected $6 trillion federal deficit.

Gore's extremism on 2nd Amendment issues also cost him West Virginia, and his home State of Tennessee.

As for the Federal deficit, how would a strong stance on RKBA by the Dim-o-Rats(tm) have stopped the 9-11 attacks?
 
Good editorial. I am a pro-gun Democrat who is in total agreement with Ted Rall. I do, however, think that there is a change within the liberal base going on that is moving away from gun control. I don't think that the Democratic liberal base is as pro-gun control as we were soon after the Kennedy assassinations.

Note that this is a very good observation that Ted Rall points out:
Republicans whittle away at the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and smear opponents who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech.

Note also that both parties abuse the 10th amendment (states' rights). They both claim states' rights with it's their issue being gutted at the federal level and ignore states' rights when their issues are being pushed at the federal level. "Bush v. Gore" is an excellent example of how to ignore states' rights. (Note Bush is listed first in the case name, because it was Bush who brought the case to the federal courts - i.e. Bush was the plaintiff).
 
Last edited:
I am a pro gun Democrat but Kerry is never getting my vote, not after that fiasco on the assault weapons amendment in the lawsuit bill the other month.

There are pro gun Democrats at the local level thoughthe party leadership is against guns. If they would drop the gun control issue they would gain a lot.
 
I’m originally from Tennessee and I use to like Al Gore at one time. Funny how he changed his views on guns when he ran for Vice-President. Many Tennesseans were more than a little angry over that one. :cuss: Now Gore checks to see which way the wind is blowing before deciding how to vote. What can I say, the man fell way off the deep end. :uhoh:
 
I love how leftists want abortion to be a national issue but gay marriage has to be a state issue.

Personally, I think most issues should devolve to the states -- guns, education, law enforcement, taxes, social issues. Leave defense and trade to the feds and that's about it.
 
Nevertheless, Kerry would be wise to break ranks with his party's liberal base by declaring his enthusiastic support for the Second Amendment.

If Kerry told me that the sky was blue, I'd look up just to check. He hasn't got the least bit of credibilty with me. He could swear on a stack of Bibles in front of the whole country that he would work to repeal not just the AWB, but the '86 machine gun ban, the '68 GCA and the '34 NFA - and I wouldn't believe a word of it. The same goes for almost all other Dems - they'll have to do lots of ACTUAL pro-gun stuff in Congress (like repealing at least some provisions of the above-listed laws) and in the states (like, for instance, not uniformly opposing every CCH proposal out there) before I'll even begin to consider listening to them on this issue.

Besides, abolishing handguns is a lost cause ... roughly 70 million Americans own more than 200 million guns--with four to five million new weapons manufactured annually. Even if Congress authorizes police to break down every door in the country to confiscate them ... the gun genie is never going to get stuffed back into the bottle.

Well, he got that right, except for what was going to get stuffed where: If the government tries to do a door-to-door confiscation, I believe that lots of gov't employees are going to get stuffed into coffins.
 
Personally, I think most issues should devolve to the states -- guns, education, law enforcement, taxes, social issues. Leave defense and trade to the feds and that's about it.

Except that guns and the Second Amendment are purposefully at the Federal level specifically for defense. Defense of the country is what the Second Amendment is really all about. You can argue about how far off track we are with that, but that is what the Second Amendment is all about.

As far as Kerry is concerned, look at his parsed language respecting the Second Amendment. He states that he believes that the Second Amendment grants Americans the right to bear arms as it has been interpreted in our country. Look at that statement. What about the right to "keep" the arms we might need to later "bear". He also states that no one should have assault weapons on our streets, as those are weapons of war. Duhhhh! This proves he believes the Second amendment protects hunting rifles and shotguns only. It protects the weapons of war for the defense of the country. "As has been interpreted in our country" is code speak for "the Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual one". He also says "grants" rather than "protects". The individual right exists. It is our gift from our Creator. The govt. cannot grant that to you. The Second Amendment was the "protection" of that right against govt. infringement. Who else besides the govt. would try to infringe on that right?

Then he states that anyone who wants to possess an assault weapon would be welcome in the military. This shows his desires to have the military as the only entity to possess military style weapons. He would put the ultimate power solely in the hands of the govt. He does not understand our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our Declaration of Independance. Why would any freedom loving gun owner, ever vote for this Charlatan?
 
smear opponents who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech

So, if it's a Democrat speaking, it's "First Amendment right to free speech", but if it's a Republican speaking, it's "smearing opponents"........:confused:

Oh, yeah, I forgot there is a double standard, so thats OK.:rolleyes:
 
This guy sure doesn't mind scewing the facts does he?

Bush is at fault for the Budget Deficit all by himself?
Clinton managed to ballance the federal budget all by himself?

How about a little recent history lesson. When George Bush I left office and Clinton took Bush's policies had ended the recession he inherited from Reagan, and economy was taking off. Unfortunately for him the effects weren't clear yet.

Clinton inheritted a quickly growing economy which brought in huge amounts of tax dollars to the federal government. Even with this vastly increased tax revenue he had to raise taxes to cover the cost of how much government grew under him. By the time he left office, we were in the beginning of a recession, and the government had committed itself to more programs than it could fund.

Bush gave us a tax break and managed to make the recession very short, but we were still struggling with slow growth in the economy. Then 9/11 struck. As with all such things it caused investors to get scared and caused the stock market to plummet. The disaster in New York, and the necessisary spending to increase our country's security cost a fortune.

Going after the source of the attacks in Afganistan also cost a fortune.

We can argue about the war in Iraq and argue about the reasons we invaded. You say liberals are compasionate, yet they seem to think that liberating the Iraqi people from the horrendous suffering they went through under Sadam wasn't worthwhile.

I have problems with Bush. I think he's much to fast to stomp on civil liberties and give more power to the government. He seems to think that the government won't abuse that power despite the evidence of how the government has done so in the past.

He does appear to be an honestly compasionate person. He's pushed for things that were not popular with his own party for the sake of helping others. He pushed through a perscription drug plan for medicare that is obscenely expensive.

He's concerned about the welfare of illegal aliens and the mess that our immigration system has become (too concerned in my opinion).

Clinton wasn't fiscally conservative. We had huge increases in spending and tax increases under Clinton. He just happened to be in office when the economy picked up and managed to not slow it down too quickly with his tax increases and excessive regulations.

Democrats, however, still need to make the libertarian case. That's where guns come in. Accepting and promising to defend the Constitution as a whole, including the Second Amendment, could jumpstart the return of the American left from the fringe to the mainstream. Kerry's endorsement of gun rights would not only neutralize a key GOP values issue; it would serve as a cultural signifier that he doesn't view hunters and other gun aficionados with (as Democratic political consultant David Sweet put it) "an urban, sophisticated mentality that sneers at their way of life."

I think the Democrats could increase their support by defending the Constitution much more vigorously. However, I don't think Kerry is the right one to do it. He's told too many lies, and has a voting history of supporting gun control. I just don't see why anyone would believe him if he said he supported the Second Ammendment as a personal right to keep and bear arms, and said he's fight for gun owner rights.

There's also the issue of where the Democratic party is getting it's money from. It get's much more of it's money from insanely rich donors than the Republican party does. Most of those rich people donating to the Democratic Party vocally support gun control.

The other big issue with the Democrats supporting the Second Ammendment is that the Ammendment is at the heart of a bigger issue of personal responsibility. The core issue is individuals being able to take care of themselves, rather than giving up individual rights and having the government take care of them.
 
ALERT THE MEDIA!!! w4rma and Hutch agree!!
Note also that both parties abuse the 10th amendment (states' rights). They both claim states' rights with it's their issue being gutted at the federal level and ignore states' rights when their issues are being pushed at the federal level.
Truer words have ne'er been spoken.
 
Republicans whittle away at the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and smear opponents who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech.

I'll agree with the whittling away at the Fourth Amendment, and I'll even agree that Republicans do it more than Democrats in general.

Smearing opponents who exercise their First Ammendment right to free speech?

If you attack what someone says, and don't distort what they said I don't think it's smearing. If you distort the facts to attack someone because you disagree with them then you're smearing.

Tedd Rall does his share of smearing in this article.
 
Agreeing with anything Ted Rall writes makes me want to wash my brain out with bleach :barf: Not high on my list of favorite writers...

Having said that, I think he is right that the Democrats need to change strategies on the Second Amendment and become better defenders of civil liberties in general.

However, I disagree entirely that Kerry is the man to do it. The guy just voted last month to ban all centerfire rifle ammo and has a 20 year history of voting in perfect concord with the Brady Bunch. There is no way he would ever have any credibility with gun owners regardless of what he said.

Hell, at least Al gore had SOME record of pro-gun votes you could pin your hopes on, no matter how he changed them when it was politically expedient. Kerry has NEVER voted pro-gun once.

In any case, I would love to see the Democrats start showing some serious pro-Second Amendment actions at the national level - preferably before the "R" in NRA comes to mean Republican instead of Rifle.
 
Kerry isn't the man for much of anything.
Democrats didn't start having gun control as a plank in their platform until after the Kennedy and King murders. Jack Kennedy, who is a Democratic icon, was a gun enthusiast and a member of the NRA.
Since everything in politics is subject to change, there really isn't anything stopping the Democrats from simply ignoring the whole gun issue. That would net them a lot of voters who otherwise find their politics agreeable. It would also kick the Republicans soundly in the shins, as they unreasonably benefit from Democratic party policy through the "where else are they gonna go?" effect.
Of course, both Donkeys and Elephants would remain statist control freaks in myriad other ways, but that's for another thread.
 
Cripes, even old Hubert Horatio Humphrey was a pro Second amendment dude. Why did the Dems leap onto the gun control bandwagon so swiftly?

Here's his quote, found with Google.

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right to bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Hubert Horatio Humphrey, 1960
 
Why did the Dems leap onto the gun control bandwagon so swiftly?

The party has been hijacked by an extreme socialist/elitist ideology parallelling Marxism. It has become anti-American, incorporating Europeon thinking, which its adherents consider superior. The current leaders of the Democrat party have alienated JFK and Reagan Democrats. The current Democrat party is completely out of touch with American culture and is in the process of self-immolation. They are completely devoid of ideas and desperately looking for traction. Take a trip over to DU and see whether you want THAT mentality in control.
 
Except that guns and the Second Amendment are purposefully at the Federal level specifically for defense. Defense of the country is what the Second Amendment is really all about. You can argue about how far off track we are with that, but that is what the Second Amendment is all about.

You are so wrong it's not even funny......the 2nd amendment is about defending our freedom from our own government more than anything. You can argue about how far off track we are with that, but that's what the 2nd amendment is all about.
 
RepublicanMan:

You are so wrong it's not even funny......the 2nd amendment is about defending our freedom from our own government more than anything. You can argue about how far off track we are with that, but that's what the 2nd amendment is all about.

My wording wasn't the best, RepuMan. I should have clarified, but the 2nd Amendment is about defending the country from enemies both foreign and domestic. I agree with you that the Second is about protecting us from our own government as well as defending the nation from external invaders. I believe you and I would hold identical views of the need for the Second amendment and the reasons our FF's put it in the BOR. I apologize for my inadequate definition. It was in response to someone who said that guns should be handled at the state level. I was trying to explain that the Second Amendment and our guns are a national priority.
 
Golog-13 stated:

Since everything in politics is subject to change, there really isn't anything stopping the Democrats from simply ignoring the whole gun issue. That would net them a lot of voters who otherwise find their politics agreeable. It would also kick the Republicans soundly in the shins, as they unreasonably benefit from Democratic party policy through the "where else are they gonna go?" effect.

I am always preaching for the opposition to grab the issue so that the whole spectrum is shifted to my way of thinking, but RileyMc stated:

The party has been hijacked by an extreme socialist/elitist ideology parallelling Marxism. It has become anti-American, incorporating Europeon thinking, which its adherents consider superior. The current leaders of the Democrat party have alienated JFK and Reagan Democrats. The current Democrat party is completely out of touch with American culture and is in the process of self-immolation. They are completely devoid of ideas and desperately looking for traction. Take a trip over to DU and see whether you want THAT mentality in control.

which is reality.

So it is about as likely as pigs in flight.
 
What is Rall smokin?

Democrats, however, still need to make the libertarian case.
The leadership of the Democrat party hate everything libertarianism stands for. Gun control is only part of the problem.

Private property rights.

States rights / local control.

Fiscal responsibility.

Personal responsibility.

Non-interventionist foregin policy.

That's only a partial list. As several have pointed out we would be fools to take the Dems at their word on any of these issues. Show us some changes and not hot air and then we can talk. Untill then bs walks.
 
I would love to have a viable candidate to vote for that represents my views for the US senate from Ohio. If the Democratic candidates were merely moderates I would seriously consider voting for them. However it seems our Republican Senators form Ohio seem more like moderate liberals who also have the bad republican trait of stomping on the Fourth Ammendment. The Democrats are far left liberals.

The Republicans are the best of two bad choices, and attempts to try and get some sane people a bit more influence in the Ohio Republican Party didn't go so well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top