Boston Globe: Democrats aim for new support on gun issues

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harry Tuttle

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,093
Democrats aim for new support on gun issues
By Mary Leonard, Globe Staff, 12/14/2003

WOODBRIDGE, Va. -- Mark Warner brought a Harvard law degree, a successful
career as a venture capitalist, and a no-new-taxes pledge to the race for
Virginia governor. But one key to his election in this conservative,
Republican-leaning state was the "A" rating he got from the National Rifle Association.

"I liked the way he came across. He seemed like a common-sense politician,"
said Phil Strader, 32, a shooting enthusiast and Woodbridge gun store owner who
backed Warner because he opposed new gun laws and made his support for the
Second Amendment crystal clear. "As a voter, the first thing I want to know is,
`Where do you stand on gun control?' "

Strader, a competitive marksman and firearms instructor for the US Capitol
Police, is the type of voter Democratic presidential candidates are targeting
with a new strategy: Neutralize the divisive gun issue by embracing the
constitutional right to bear arms, speak of gun safety instead of gun control, and
pledge to enforce the gun laws on the books.

"Silence on the gun issue is not golden. It's deadly," said Deborah Barron, a
spokeswoman for Americans for Gun Safety, an interest group working closely
with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council to steer candidates away from
polarizing rhetoric on guns and be more sensitive to the values and culture of
gun owners, hunters, and hobbyists.

"If Democrats want to win a national majority, they have to take back the
Second Amendment and support vigorous enforcement of existing gun laws," said
Barron, who estimates 47 percent of US voting households own one or more guns.

In an October poll conducted for Americans for Gun Safety, 63 percent of gun
owners said they believe Democratic officeholders want to ban all guns, and 59
percent said Democrats do not respect the rights or values of gun owners.

The conventional wisdom in the Democratic Party is that the gun issue cost
them control of the House in 1994 and badly hurt Al Gore in 2000. Gore, who as a
candidate proposed licensing gun owners, lost Arkansas, West Virginia, and
his home state of Tennessee after aggressive NRA campaigns that portrayed him as
dangerous to gun rights.

Denielle Strader, an NRA-certified firearms instructor who sometimes works
with her husband at the Shooters Paradise store and gun range, shudders at the
mention of Gore's name. "Scary," she said. Phil Strader said Gore was a "raging
antigun Democrat." George W. Bush, who promised in his presidential campaign
to strengthen enforcement of existing gun laws but not enact new ones, "stayed
safely in the middle," Strader said.

The war in Iraq, national security, and the economy have pushed gun control
from the spotlight. But a violent spree like the Columbine High School
shootings in Colorado, a terrorist attack using guns, or a high-volume debate in
Congress over renewing the 1994 federal ban on 19 assault weapons next year could
put guns in the campaign crosshairs.

In 1992, Howard Dean, then Vermont's governor, said in a National Rifle
Association questionnaire that he opposed restricting ownership of assault weapons.
As a presidential candidate, Dean now says he supports the current ban and
would renew it, though he would not enact new federal laws, choosing to leave
gun control up to individual states.

John F. Kerry, who voted for the original assault-weapons ban in the Senate,
has accused Dean of being soft on gun safety and pandering to the NRA. As
governor of a rural state, Dean defended the rights of gun owners and hunters and
was was endorsed by the gun lobby.

"I don't want to be the candidate of the NRA, I don't want our party to be
the party of the NRA," Kerry said after donning hunting gear and bagging two
pheasants with a 12-gauge shotgun in front of a group of reporters and
photographers in Iowa in October. "We can stand up for safety in America and keep guns
out of the hands of children and felons and still respect the Second Amendment
of our nation."

During a candidate debate in South Carolina in May, Joseph Lieberman
disavowed licensing of gun owners, called it unconstitutional, and said he never
supported it as Gore's running mate in 2000. Lieberman is sponsoring legislation to
extend the 1993 Brady Law to require background checks on buyers who purchase
guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows.

But the 2004 Democratic candidates' model could be Mark Warner, who had a
strategy to win the votes of rural and blue-collar Virginians by promising to
protect their gun rights. He hunted turkeys, formed a "Sportsmen for Mark Warner"
committee, and met with NRA officials at their northern Virginia headquarters
to persuade them to stay neutral, which they did until the last two weeks of
the race. Warner won, becoming Virginia's first Democratic governor since
1989.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Warner's position
on guns not only helped him but started a "sea change" within the Democratic
Party.

"Basically the gun issue has kicked Democrats' butts for over a decade, and
they don't want to go down that one-way street again," LaPierre said. "There is
no enthusiasm for future restrictive gun control in this presidential
election. The Democratic Party would like to bury this issue and walk away from it."

The NRA, which spent $20 million in the 2000 elections, is expected to
endorse Bush. The president has kept his promise not to enact new gun controls, and
he supports legislation passed by the House in April that would give firearms
manufacturers immunity from most civil lawsuits, an item high on the NRA's
agenda.

Through his spokesman, Bush said he would sign a bill renewing the assault
weapons ban, but the NRA opposes it, and gun-control groups do not expect Bush
to "lift a finger" to move it through Congress next year, said Blaine Rummel, a
spokesperson for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Polls show that a
majority of Americans support the ban, but it is not popular with gun dealers like
Strader, who say it's a toothless law because manufacturers have made cosmetic
changes to skirt it and many of the banned semiautomatic weapons that were
made before 1994 remain in circulation.

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, though, believes Democrats can win over
younger and suburban voters with a message that strong gun laws enhance national
security. "Democrats ought to stand and fight, not run to the right," Lake
said. Indeed, polls show strong support among Democratic primary voters for gun
control.

But if Dean is the Democratic nominee, he could benefit in the general
election from the cultural signals he has sent on guns and wanting to be "the
candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," said Robert J.
Spitzer, author of "The Politics of Gun Control."

"In the sense that Dean has been painted as the most leftist Democrat, he can
point to the gun issue and say `I'm not liberal on some issues,"' said
Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Cortland. "It
helps him broaden his base."

Mary Leonard can be reached at [email protected].

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ats_aim_for_new_support_on_gun_issues?mode=PF

Q. How effective are existing federal gun-control laws?
A. A study by Americans for Gun Safety of Justice Department data found that
20 of 22 major federal gun statues are rarely enforced. At least 85 percent
of US prosecutions are for illegal posession of a firearm by a felon and
possession of a firearm during a violent or drug-related federal crime.

Q. Has the ban on assault weapons reduced violent crimes?
A. It's difficult to say, though the Justice Department has reported that
assault weapons represented 1.2 percent of the guns used in crimes in 2002 down
from 3.6 percent in 1995.

Q. What is the so-called gun-show loophole?
A. Under the 1993 Brady Law only licensed gun dealers are required to perform
FBI background checks on gun buyers. Many lawmakers want to require
unlicensed sellers at gun shows to do the same checks for felons and fugitives.
 
DNC Strategy Meeting:

"We're losing votes. What can we do to stop this, besides getting parasites registered and promising them the incomes of the productive?"

"Uh, blow smoke up 'Joe Sixpack's' @$$ about supporting his RKBA until we can hide provisions eliminating the 2nd in riders on the bogus education and healthcare bills we're concocting."

"Good one. Let's go with that."

:rolleyes:
 
Democrats can never honestly be pro-gun. Their agenda is to tell other people how to live. That, ultimately, is only possible when you have the power and other people have no effective means of self-defense. They will never be comfortable with a self-empowered world.
 
They can hide from the issue, or try to mask their positions. But no candidate--Democrat or Republican--can run from his record.

There isn't a single Democrat in the current lineup who can point to a record of having opposed gun control. Not even Dean. All he did in Vermont was not change anything.
 
Quote:

"There isn't a single Democrat in the current lineup who can point to a record of having opposed gun control."



Bush will sign the AWB renewal into law.

Lets repeat that....

BUSH WILL SIGN THE AWB RENEWAL INTO LAW.

Now what were you saying about the Democrats?
 
Democrats aim for new support on gun issues

Stop the planet, I'm getting off....:barf:

However, Lone_Gunman, you are right on target.
 
Lone_Gunman, I was going to add that to my post, but decided the point was superfluous. Bush has a record of being pro-gun in Texas, where it's easy to be pro-gun. He's also said he would sign the renewal of the Black Rifle ban if it reaches his desk.

He's obviously betting it's not going to reach his desk. Considering that he probably thought the Surpreme Court would strike down campaign finance, he's taking one of his characteristic risks. If the renewal of the ban gets through congress, and he signs it, he's a one-term president.
 
Bush will sign the AWB renewal into law.

Lets repeat that....

BUSH WILL SIGN THE AWB RENEWAL INTO LAW.

So, like, what's yer point?? Do you want me to vote against Bush becasue he said he'll sign a new AWB? ALL of the viable candidates for president in 2004 have said they will sign a new AWB.

Let's repeat that...
ALL CANDIDATES IN 2004 WILL SIGN THE AWB RENEWAL INTO LAW.


The current AWB dies in Sept 2004, mere weeks before the general election. Let's wait and see whether a new AWB makes it into law before we start ranting about the evil Mr. Bush.

If you don't like they way things turn out, you'll have a prime oportunity to make your feelings known on election day.
 
Headless Thompson Gunner,

Yes, I intend to vote against Bush for several reasons, one of which is his support for renewing the AWB. Other good reasons though include campaign finance reform, medicare drug bill, and patriot act.

He played political chicken with the campaign finance reform bill. He thought the Supreme Court would strike it down, but they didnt and now we have a limited 1st Amendment.

He is playing political chicken again with the AWB. He thinks it will never reach his desk, that it will die in congress, and he wont have to worry about it.

Playing chicken with the Bill of Rights is not a good idea.

I will use my vote to send a message to the Republican Party that they need to move back toward the right. If Bush loses, thats fine, I am prepared for that, and actually don't think any of us will be able to tell any difference anyway.
 
Mark Warner brought a Harvard law degree, a successful career as a venture capitalist, and a no-new-taxes pledge to the race for Virginia governor. But one key to his election in this conservative, Republican-leaning state was the "A" rating he got from the National Rifle Association.

Mark Warner didn't have an A rating from the NRA. He had a C rating, and that's because he had never held public office, so had no record to rate. In any event, Warner did not make "his support for the Second Amendment crystal clear" he played the "I support sportsmen" game.

And I find it interesting that The Brady Campaign supported Mark Warner and proclaimed his victory as a defeat for the NRA.

From The Brady Campaign's November 7, 2001 press release:

In Virginia, Warner did not highlight his support for gun safety legislation, but his public stands on the issue made him clearly the better candidate, leading the Brady Campaign and Million Mom March to send out an e-mail alert last week to thousands of supporters urging them to vote for Warner.

"Mark Warner supports upholding Virginia's gun laws -- including the landmark one-gun-a-month statute that has been instrumental in reducing gun trafficking -- and the law that prevents carrying concealed weapons in bars and restaurants," said Mrs. Brady.

While many news reports have focused on Warner's "courting" of the NRA, the fact is that he received a "C" rating from the group and his opponent, Mark Earley, was given an "A-." The NRA did not officially endorse Earley but it sent out strong letters of support to its members: "We believe the differences between the candidates are substantial and that Mark Earley is the best candidate for NRA Members in Virginia." Mrs. Brady said that Warner was able to make inroads with sportsmen and hunters in Virginia because so many of them do not follow the extremist positions of the NRA.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=360
 
Yes, I intend to vote against Bush for several reasons, one of which is his support for renewing the AWB. Other good reasons though include campaign finance reform, medicare drug bill, and patriot act.
just out of curiosity, who do you intend to vote for? Because if you vote for a Democrat, you'll be voting for someone who wants a more strict AWB and thinks the current medicare drug bill isn't enough. If you vote for someone else, you might as well have voted for a Democrat. I definitely don't agree with everything bush says and does, but he's clearly the best choice if you support the second amendment or don't want your taxes pointlessly raised.
 
Nico, I would consider voting Democrat, but for a somewhat convoluted reason. First, understand that I am not a liberal, have never voted for a Democrat for president, and don't have anything in common with their party leadership.

Unfortunately though the Republican party has moved itself significantly to the left. I think the Republican party today is more liberal than the Democratic party was 20 yrs ago. With the Repubs in charge of the Congress and Presidency we know have passed a large social welfare program (medicare drug bill), limited the 1st amendment (campaign fincance reform), and significantly increased the chances of government intrusion in our lives (patriot act).

In addition we have a president who will sign a new AWB if it reaches his desk.

All these things sound like what Democrats should be pushing for, not Republicans.

The Repubs need to be pushed back to the right, and the only way to do that is for them to lose votes. I think we would be better off in the long run to live with a democratic president for the next 4 yrs, and push the Repubs back to the right where they belong.

Its not that the Democrats need to win... its that the repubs need to lose, and learn from their mistake.

If the republicans continue going down the path they are currently on, within 4 years they may as well just merge into one big party with the dems.

I have thought about voting 3rd party, but I think my vote is more effectively spent voting Democrat, because it will take the repubs 2 votes instead of one to make up for losing mine.
 
Let's not forget that the Right in England (or the rest of Europe) is the party that is slightly less left than the alternatives. Left and less left. :barf:
 
Unfortunately though the Republican party has moved itself significantly to the left. I think the Republican party today is more liberal than the Democratic party was 20 yrs ago.
I just heard on the radio that Democrats - of all people! - may actually campaign on a platform of FISCAL DISCIPLINE! :what:

According to the speaker on the radio, of the five years in our history when year-to-year Federal spending increased the most - three of those years were under Bush 43, and he's working on the fourth. Bush has yet to veto a SINGLE spending bill. At least 2/3 of Bush's spending increases have NOTHING to do with the war on terror, rebuilding the military, or homeland security. They're giveaways - liberals and lefties should be ecstatic, since he's giving them everything they've always wanted.

And that was before his $400,000,000,000 (to start!) Medicare expansion.

:barf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top