Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) on gun regulation (states' rights, pro-gun)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, he believes that in a state with near-zero violent crime that
law-abiding citizens CAN have guns to protect themselves but in L.A.,
New York, or D.C., where the streets are dangerous, that law-abiding
citizens should NOT have what they need to protect themselves. Uh, yeah,
that makes tons of sense.

Anytime I hear someone mention duckhunting blunderbusses I reach for my
revolver.

Mr. Dean needs to re-read the Bill of Rights.
 
So...we vote for someone who is....."honest" about supporting oppressive Federal laws already on the books...
Click to expand...
Or you vote for someone who has been either lying or doubletalking about supporting those same Federal laws already on the books...
Or you vote 3rd party, or you stay home.

IMHO, it's better to vote for the guy who is trying to be honest, has a good shot of winning the election and who is trying to explain his position rather than obscure it.

Also, note that by supporting Gov. Dean, you would be helping to create more sympathy within the Democratic Party for pro-gun policy.


"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson

"The preeminence of representative government {is maintained} by showing that its foundations are laid in reason, in right, and in general good." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810.

"Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes with an unprepared people a tyranny still of the many, the few, or the one." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1815.
 
Then who would you vote for?
Click to expand...

Well, again, I'm not happy with any of them on guns, but I'll get to your answer in a moment.

I think greyhound said it very well:
Remember that gun control is only one issue. Given, he is not as anti-gun as the other Democratic candidates, but on ALL other issues he is a typical far-leftist nanny-stater.
Click to expand...

Dean is far to liberal for my tastes. Yes on some issues he is a moderate (he is a fiscal conservative, which as a member of the Concord Coalition I like) but he is for gay marriage, for widespread abortion, in addition to being to anti-gun (look at the attitude behind the supposed "moderate" stance on guns- virtually unlimited gun ownership in VT or WY is ok, but there should be maybe a virtual ban in DC and LA:what: ).


On guns no one is good.

Many of the Dems are more far out than Dean. Bush is for the AWB. Both parties have a bad history on guns (the ban on full-autos was under Reagan, the ban on imports of "assult weapons" was under Bush the first, for two examples).

But as greyhound said, there are other issues other than guns.

The only candidate likely to be decent on guns will be the Libertarian but being a conservative Democrat I'm sure there will be other important issues where I'm going to be even more displeased with him/her.

As a conservative Democrat I'm unhappy with the Libertarians, and the Democrats on several issues: many seem to want unlimited abortions and want gay marriages. I'm unhappy with the Democrats on a few others: many would have our taxes too high, they don't like to cut any existing program, they are against faith-based initiatives (often these are the most effective programs), they often want too many regulations on business, many tend to be bad on the military, they don't seem to want any restrictions on/reform of welfare, they are often notoriously bad on guns.

As a conservative Democrat I'm not happy with the Libertarians and Republicans on many issues: they seem to want to gut even useful, needed and efficient gov't programs (like Social Security), they would drop taxes too far to levels that could not match a minimum of societal needs, they would favor too few regulations on businesses. I'm not happy with the Republicans alone on several issues as well: most seem to want to ban abortions altogether, they'd bring on many policies that would be bad for members of minority religions like me, they tend to have the wrong military priorities (big programs instead of more, better trained, people), they like to spend too much on their own pet projects, they seem to want to do away altogether with welfare.

So if you can find me a candidate who is for very few (or no) gun controls, is for keeping abortion legal, but heavily regulated, wants to preserve Social Security, is willing to keep some basic level of social welfare for the less fortunate (but insure through time limits and education that it can't be perminant), wishes to preserve family values and the family unit as it should be, will maintain spending and taxes at levels that will address basic societal needs but without going overboard (BALANCED BUDGET, probably my #1 issue, along with family values), will support faith-based initiatives but will not let religion encroach upon government, he/she must be pro-business while still being for a minimum of needed regulations (product safety, some minimum of environmental concerns, anti-trust), etc. I'm all ears. Until then, we pick and choose who comes closest to our views on a variety of issues and then we have to decide overall, which are most important and who is the least bad compromise. Many people are like me who have core issues that none of the candidates fit. All of them are bad on at least one of my core issues. So who is best, or least bad, on the largest number of them?

I will probably be voting for Lieberman in the primaries. He does not have a great record on guns, but it isn't any worse than Bush's and he is better on other issues than, say, Dean. He has finally come back to his conservative Democrat roots, informed by his religious, Torah true, values. He came out strongly against the Supreme Court's decision on sodomy. He's come out against Dean's VT law on gay marriage. He has supported several restrictions on abortion (while supporting keeping it available). He is a hawk on military issues (and very good on personnel and military quality of life issues). He is one of the only Democrats in either the House or Senate who supported Bush's faith-based initiatives.

Anyway, I don't come here to get into these kinds of discussions generally. I occasionally post on them, but I prefer to stick with gun issues, so I probably won't elaborate anymore, or debate anyone here. I'm on a gun board to discuss guns, not abortion, welfare, taxes, etc.
 
Anyone who expects an office seeker from either party to give their actual position on anything contrivercial is living in la-la land. This is most especially true of Democrats and their gun confication/antiself-defense policies.

And not wishing to start a flame war of any kind, but I've got to say that I was only sixteen when I realized that the ponzi-scheme known as "social security" was just that. I was also trying to think of any fed or state gov program in my memory that has/had done anything that couldn't have been better done at a lower cost by private businesses...

As for voting, these days I'm almost glad to be out of the country so I have to use an absentee ballot. That way I don't have to deal with the GiGo that passes for political campaigns these days. Sorry for the rant, it's a slow day at work.
 
[blockquote](w4rma) Or you vote 3rd party, or you stay home.[/blockquote]
Almost always the same thing.
 
:confused: Widespread abortion? *Noone* is for widespread abortion. It is my understanding that Dean wants to do whatever he can to lower the demand for abortions without creating a demand for back-alley/coathanger abortions.

Dean is *not* for gay marriage.
…
DEAN: We have civil unions, which gives equal rights -- doesn't give marriage, but it gives equal rights in terms of insurance, employment rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, to every single Vermonter, no matter who they are.

You know, interestingly enough, Dick Cheney took a position in 2000 in the debates that is not very different than mine. He said, this is not a federal issue. I really am inclined to leave this matter to the states, and I think we ought to let states figure out how to give equal rights to everybody in the way that they do it. So I think this is kind of a political issue at the federal level, but the power to decide these things really belongs to the state level.

KING: All right. On your own state level, if it were a referendum, would you vote for gay marriage?

DEAN: If what were -- we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberate chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people.

Marriage is a religious institution, the way I see it. And we're not in the business of telling churches who they can and cannot marry. But in terms of civil rights and equal rights under the law for all Americans, that is the state's business, and that's why we started civil unions.

KING: So you would be opposed to a gay marriage?

DEAN: If other states want to do it, that's their business. We didn't choose to do that in our state.
…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html
http://www.howarddean.tv/
 
It's hard to believe that Russert could go into an interview with such a lack of info. He relies on Democrats (sic) to tell him about gun shows?

You can buy a gun on Sat/Sun at a show without a background check? HUH? Oh, I get it, the leftists are referring to the private sales that occur at gun shows. Those sales are 100% legit, friend. I know you guys are trying to regulate private gun sales with this 'close the gun show loophole' nonsense. And if you ever are able to regulate those private sales at shows, regulating all other private transactions won't be far behind.
 
Howard Dean has a brain on this issue and others (my god, he's actually for the 10th amendment, something no repub in memory has mentioned). He is by far the best candidate among the Dems, and arguably a better friend to gun owners than "W". I'm going to switch to Dem in order to vote for Dean in the primaries then back to independent - just in case shrub doesn't win, I'd rather see a pro-gun guy in the White house.
 
Dean supports the AWB. He is also in favor of denying private sale of firearms (closing the "gun-show loopshole"). He is opposed to the gun-lawsuit immunity bill. In other words, his position is no different than any other Democratic presidential hopeful.
Click to expand...

It is also no different from President Bush's position on both gunshows and the AWB. I have not seen Dean comment on the immunity issues and it isn't on his website, do you have a source for that?

I like Dean. If a Democrat is going to run for President, I sure hope it is him; but as long as the Democrats have destruction of the Second Amendment enshrined as part of their party platform, they aren't going to get too far by making vaguely pro-gun noises.

I think that they are just hoping to lull the less politically active gun owners who may be sympathetic to the Dems on other issues from voting their guns. They are looking at gaining some support from the duck/deer hunter crowd.
 
"Dean, according to the Cato institute, led one of the highest taxing and spending states, backs partial birth abortion, and thinks the whole issue of skull sucking infanticide is phony."-Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center

The guy is just not trustworthy. All the anger in his speeches makes him seem INTENTIONALLY unpolished, like that's how he's trying to get over. I think his stance on guns will change if he thinks he can get away with it,especially since he is trying to paint the gun issue as a "hunting rifle" issue. I'll vote for Bush or for a Libertarian before I'd vote for Dean. Actually, I would not vote for him if he was the only candidate.
 
Cato: The Mother of All Big Spenders: Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $455 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent. Administration officials privately admit that spending is too high. Yet they argue that deficits are appropriate in times of war and recession. So, is it true that the war on terrorism has resulted in an increase in defense spending? Yes. And, is it also true that a slow economy has meant a decreased stream of tax revenues to pay for government? Yes again.

But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.
…
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/dehaven-030728.html

The fiscal conservative argument on Dean is that Vermont has not accumulated budget deficits (unlike, say, President Bush) during his time in office. {Indeed, Vermont went from a $70 million deficit to a $10 million surplus.} Having missed the point, Bozell goes one better by arguing: "Dean, according to the Cato Institute, led one of the nation's highest taxing and spending states."

Bozell doesn't bore us with a reference, but Cato's most comprehensive study on the topic are its Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors. [The 2000 report is available as a PDF file here, and the 2002 report here.]

Why not start with 2000, which covered both Governors Dean and Bush? Where did Dean rank? His overall fiscal policy grade was 53, placing him 34th. (ahead of 7 Republican governors.) On spending, Dean was ranked 10th (for frugality,) and Bush 7th. For "Average Annual Change in Real per Capita Tax Revenue through 1998" Dean was listed fourth under the heading "Best Revenue Restraint." For "Average Annual Change in Tax Revenue per $1,000 Personal Income through 1998" Dean was (again) ranked fourth for "Best Revenue Restraint." Dean does feature as a "top 10 tax hikers" Bozell might counter. Indeed. But what was his "Average Annual Recommended Tax Changes as a Percentage of Prior Year's Spending?" 1.88%. (In fourth place, he is beaten by 2 Republican governors.) [Dean's tax increases came from higher corporate income taxes, personal income tax went down --according to Cato-- under Dean.] Cato's comments on Dean?

In some ways he is. {Vermont’s most fiscally conservative governor in decades.} In his first three terms as governor (Vermont still has two year terms), state spending rose by less than personal income growth. In 1999 he sought and won support for an across-the-board income tax cut to make the state more economically competitive.
…
Amazingly, in its 2002 report the Cato institute simply repeated much of what it had said in 2000, but came to a very different conclusion. Dean went from being in many ways a fiscal conservative to exhibiting "so-called fiscal conservatism." {In case we couldn't have guessed what brought about this change of heart, Cato points out "Dean is said to be a potential Democratic presidential nominee." You don't say!}

But what does Cato's data show? For the period 1991-2000, real per capita spending increased by 32% in Vermont (30th) -- compared to 47% in Texas (11th.)

On spending, Dean went from a ranking of 10th to 8th (again, this is frugality in spending) and from a grade of C to B. Did Dean make the top 5 list for "Average Annual Change in General Fund Spending per $1,000 Personal Income, 2000–2002." Yep. 4th again. (-4.7%.) [Four of the five governors with the worst spending restraint are Republicans. Three of the five with the best spending restraint are Democrats.] Did Dean make the top 5 list for "best revenue restraint" in Average Annual Change in Real per Capita General Fund Revenue, 2000–2002? Yep. {Were 4 of the 5 governors with the worst revenue restraints Republicans? Yep. The fifth was Independent Jesse Ventura.} To be fair, Dean is listed again as a top tax hikers, although again this comes from a whopping 1.9% for proposed and enacted tax increases.
…
http://www.sadlyno.com/article.php?story=20030806084500906
http://deandefense.org/archives/000611.html
 
How is Dean being honest on his gun position? He trys to paint a moderate, hunter-friendly image, but I haven't seen any evidence to back that up. He wants to pass more federal gun laws despite his claims to the contrary, and he's all too willing to allow states to batter the right as they see fit.
 
Any time a pol says 'I'm not interested in hunters' shotguns/rifles,' grab your firearms, friends. Anyone who thinks the RKBA is about hunting deer or rabbits is NOT a friend of freedom.
 
…
Dean also wins accolades for his handling of fiscal policy. "He is a very frugal man," says A. Wayne Roberts, president of Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, who worked in the Reagan White House in the '80s. "There is no way in heck he would tolerate a deficit." In fact, Dean resisted pleas from more liberal Democratic legislators to hike spending while pushing through two income tax cuts, paying down the state's debt, and funding the state's "rainy day" reserves. As a result, "we are now one of the few states that is in good shape financially," says Jim Douglas, Dean's Republican successor as governor. In fact, Vermont closed the books on its 2003 fiscal year with a $10.4 million surplus, even as California, Massachusetts, and many other states battle huge deficits.
…
Indeed, virtually everyone who has worked with Dean believes he would be a demon at reducing the federal deficit. While balancing the budget and keeping defense expenditures intact, that would leave precious little room for new liberal programs. What it more likely would leave are a lot of dashed expectations among the crowd that so fervently wants the doctor to be in.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845084.htm

This article, referenced above, is on Bush as president, not as governor:
Cato: The Mother of All Big Spenders: Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton
…
http://www.cato.org/research/articl...ven-030728.html

IMHO, Dean is trying to explain his position on gun regulations as well as he can.
 
He's being somewhat honest about what regulations he supports, but he's not gun friendly at all and there are still all those federal laws he wants passed when he claims that's not what he wants.
 
He wants to pass another AWB, too, don't forget that. It's not a renewal coming up in 2004, the ban expires and another has to be passed. Dean is for passing another AWB.
 
Both Bush and Dean say they will renew/keep that federal law

…
Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want.
…
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howa...Gun_Control.htm

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/0412...ion_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts
 
I acknowledged that, w4rma, my point is that his claims to want to keep the federal government out of gun control are baloney. He's got two federal laws right there he wants to pass and we're over a year from election.

Also, my posts had nothing to do with Bush's stance. I do not like Bush.
 
National Association of Police Organizations definition of the "gun show loophole"

…
The gun show loophole refers to the ability of unlicensed sellers at gun shows to sell firearms without conducting the background checks that licensed gun dealers are required to make under the Brady Law. Thirty-two states have failed to close this gun show loophole, allowing violent criminals and other prohibited individuals to obtain weapons that jeopardize the safety of the public and of law enforcement. The passage of S. 890 will resolve this defect in the law.
…
http://www.napo.org/napo6.htm

The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) is a coalition of police unions and associations from across the United States that serves to advance the interests of America's law enforcement officers through legislative and legal advocacy, political action and education.

Founded in 1978, NAPO is now the strongest unified voice supporting law enforcement officers in the United States. NAPO represents more than 2,000 police unions and associations, 230,000 sworn law enforcement officers, 11,000 retired officers and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.
http://www.napo.org/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
USA: "Dean backer explains gun-control stance "
Replies
6
Views
493
Standing Wolf
S
H
  • Locked
Howard Dean on Gun Control
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
cracked butt
C
D
  • Locked
(Anti-gun drivel) NRA hit bull’s-eye with Va. lawmakers
Replies
5
Views
736
JPL
J
N
  • Locked
NRA Endorses Bush, Badnarik Not Surprised
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
The Rabbi
T
C
  • Locked
D.C. "Gun Control Debate Centers on NRA Tactics, D.C. Gun Ban "
Replies
0
Views
486
cuchulainn
C
Back
Top