Can the political impact of gun issues be verified?

[MyRoad]

I frequently hear that Democrats/liberals won't take on the gun issue because it lost them seats in the previous election... really? Are we sure of that? Couldn't it have been a parallel issue -- like abortion or gay marriage or supporting/not supporting the war -- that was the actual cause of their loss? Sometimes I think it's like that classic cartoon, where the little bear thinks he's scaring off the wolves but he doesn't know his mother is standing behind him -- and we're taking credit for a victory that was circumstantial.

Is there solid information that backs the assertion that politicians lost elections SPECIFICALLY because of their gun issue vote?

I'm asking because I wonder what the politicians perception of the power of this lobby is. Yes, it has impact, but can they really surgically separate it from other issues? If they vote main-line conservative on every issue and then vote anti-gun, will they really not get re-elected?

 

[noops]

Variance

I think it's not so simple as that, because there isn't a broad spectrum of agreement within the Democratic party. For example, in Massachusetts you're likely to find some gun-grabber dems. Hell, in Massachusetts and New York there are Gun Grabber republicans.

Out here in the west, I think you see a different story. In Oregon the Democratic Party recently voted to have a Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party. They're calling themselves the Blue Steel Democrats, and are working hard for it. In fact, our fairly good CCW laws passed under Democrats. I don't think you'll find a real Gun Owners Caucus in the Massachusetts Democratic party.

I think states like Oregon, Montana, Idaho, and others, where there are significant numbers of Democrats, are a little different than some others. So I don't think you'll find a broad based conclusion on the issue, and there will be significant variance by state or region.

In general, I think we've got to work on all states for reducing gun laws, but for political purposes, I think that if the NRA and similar groups focused on swing states like Oregon, West Virginia they could do some real damage to the crazy Brady Bunch.

Noops

 

[22-rimfire]

Based on NRA assertions, pro-gun candidates have won. This is especially true prior to this last election in November where other issues were deemed more significant than 2A rights. Gun Control was simply not discussed for the most part during the campaign on both party sides. The issue still exists and it will come up.

Most important elected offical is the president as the president has veto power and it takes a 2/3 majority to override the veto.

I believe this past election is just a warm-up for the Democrats for the election in 2008 and they are not going to do much of anything in the next two years to ruffle many feathers. That probably includes raising taxes as they want that issue for 2008. The Democrats have been very good at selling the belief that it was the Republican's fault for the spending, deficits, the war in Iraq, border securty, and so forth.

With the election results, I would say it EXTREMELY unlikely that the US will do anything other than beat its chest relative to the situations in Iran and North Korea. Israel is on its own for the time being. But what that means is that radical Islam WON. The mid term election was a referendum on Iraq for the most part. The most the Democrats will ever do is send a few cruise missles somewhere or a few bombing missions to spank someone. You just have to look at recent history. Again radical Islam WON. Those that don't like to accept this, will just have to.

 

[buzz_knox]

The real impact is less important than the perceived impact. After '94, Clinton publicly stated the assault weapons ban and the NRA had cost the Dems their majority. Whether it was this or his attempt to nationalize health care is up in the air. But the fact that he stated it and the Dems apparently believe it is sufficient to give them pause.

 

[bg]

I recall in the election of 2000, Mr.Clinton stated the NRA
and gun owners HAD made a difference at the polls.

 

[MyRoad]

Buzz and BG, that's what I was looking for. Back in '94 I was not as gun-oriented and if I had heard/read Clinton say that, it didn't really register with me. If that's the case, then I suspect 22-rimfire is right, and the anti's (Democrat or republican) will wait until the power shift is complete, and then hammer this issue.

 

[thexrayboy]

The political fallout from past gun control misadventures will change the political landscape in some ways. Unfortunately the changes will most likely be to cause the antis to mask there efforts to disarm us through misdirection and other political ploys that allow them to sneak legislation through piggybacked to other important issues. In all probablity they will not attack us openly as they have in the past. While the socialists masquerading as liberals are cowardly and treasonous in many respects they are not stupid and we should never underestimate the persistence they bring to gun control efforts. They will continue their course of savaging the Bill of Rights but it will be in more covert and devious ways. Their goals have not changed but they do remember 1994 and do not want to repeat that. They have not changed their spots, only the tactics they use.

 

[slzy]

no doubt guns cost gore tn and wv,thus the election.all the local candidates said illegal immigration was the biggest issue,i don't know why it did not get the same attention in the federal elections.