Governor Dean on Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WyldOne

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
93
Location
Boston, MA
Okay, it's no secret that I can be naive (to put it nicely) at times.

Well, this is one of those times. :)

See, there are no candidates that fully satisfy me....mainly because I'm still kinda liberal-ish. So I had thought that, maybe Howard Dean would be good. He's liberal/left, but he's also the governor of Vermont. Vermont, which has such wonderful gun laws that they don't even have gun laws.

So I checked out his campaign website to see what he says about gun control. And, um, I don't really get it? Parts of it are bad, very bad. But are parts of it good? Or just not as bad as other Dems?

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

Sensible Gun Laws (<--already that sounds so bad)

"If you say "gun control" in Vermont, Tennessee or Colorado, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California."

Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.

Vermont has the lowest homicide rate in the United States. (That part sounds good!) During my eleven years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was 5. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm. (that sounds good too :) but...)

This leads to my belief that if you say "gun control" in Vermont, Tennessee or Colorado, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California. (is this a good thing or a bad thing? I've never even grappled with this idea before).

I believe we should keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have - including the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill - and close the gun show loophole using Insta-check and then let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun control laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law.
Click to expand...


See where I'm confused? Aaack. Is there any way to get this translated, but without more rhetoric? Like, I just want to call the dude on the phone and go "what the heck are you saying, exactly?"
 
He's covering all his bases.

He knows gun control is a loser especially since he is from Vermont.

He is also a Democrat in a primary election which means he has to play to the true believers. That means he has to suck up to the most extreme elements of the Democrat party which just happen to be anti-gun.

I also think he is smart enought to see what works and what doesn't; hence the straddle.
 
I believe we should keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have - including the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill - and close the gun show loophole
Click to expand...

He's for more federal gun control and, most proposals to close the "gun show loophole" include more restrictions on private sales also.

let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun control laws they want..........we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law.
Click to expand...

He's for letting the states pass any gun control they wish, regardless of Constitutionality.
 
I also think he is smart enought to see what works and what doesn't; hence the straddle.
Click to expand...

So, let's just say he gets elected President (just play with me :)). Do you think he would abide by the wishes of his core voters (as GWB is failing to do with the AWB)? Or is that "sensible gun control" talk just chatter, and he would come to his senses when he gets to the White House? :confused:

I just don't know what to think.
 
Polititions are all graduates of the school of confusing doublespeak. They really don't want you to know what they think.
 
Ultimately, he's a politcian, and if he's running for Federal office it means that he's after power.

Why would any politician willingl allow people a means to resist them?

Also, how is he on other freedoms, like, say, economic freedom? Does he support my right to my property (money) or does he want to take it and redistribute it to the 4 corners globe? If he does not, do you think he likes the idea of my being armed and possibly resisting?

Does he want to impose scores of new regulations on businesses, that they might resist with arms?

Either your for freedom or your not, and I wouldn't look to any politician for the freedom loving kind (Ron Paul exempted).
 
Also, how is he on other freedoms, like, say, economic freedom?
Click to expand...

I don't know, and since I'm not a Libertarian, that's not my main priority.

Either your for freedom or your not,
Click to expand...

See, I think that's making it far too black-and-white.


And besides, all I really wanted was help translating his position on gun control. Trust me (;)), you can oppose gun control but not really have moral issues with taxes and laws on businesses and stuff. :)
 
"what the heck are you saying, exactly?"
Click to expand...
He doesn't want you to know what he's saying. He wants to please everyone. It's typical worthless politician spew, if you ask me. He stands for nothing. He has carefully crafted a position out of thin air here aimed at duping the maximum number of people into believing he is with them.

What is clear, however, is that he has zero understanding of the issue re: constitutionality, the value of an armed civilian population, the morality of self-defense or the dynamics of gun control. "Having Uzis taken off the streets of New York"?? Is he kidding?

In one breath he expresses his love for Vermont and it's statistically non-existant crime rate, yet in the next he says how he wants to close the 'gun show loophole' (which around here is colloquially known as "freedom") and supports the AWB - even though it has been proven ineffective at stopping crime of any kind.

Think about this: when Hillary Clinton called for the abolition of the electoral college when her party lost because of it, it showed in black and white how she could not care less about the Constitution and our system of gov't. The moment it got in her way, she had the lighter out to torch the whole thing. That is the earmark of a tyrant. This Dean press release shows similar thinking, although more carefully hidden.

The Bill of Rights is very obviously not a big factor in Howard's decision making process. When he's sitting around with his spin-meisters trying to decide what he believes in, I doubt they are consulting the Constitution to see what they powers they do or do not have. This is no small problem with modern politicians. When he says he's in favor of letting the states decide how they want to adress the gun control issue, it makes it clear that Howard does not understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He either doesn't get it or he doesn't care.

You have to think past the spin, Wyld. Who is Howard Dean? What does he believe in? How does he see/understand the relationship between gov't and citizen?

That press release says volumes about Howard Dean. You just have to read between the lines.

- Gabe
 
You have to think past the spin, Wyld. Who is Howard Dean? What does he believe in? How does he see/understand the relationship between gov't and citizen?
Click to expand...

*sigh*

But, nobody has a good enough answer. It's times like this when I start to think that I'll just not vote (no, don't be silly, I'll always vote....but....I don't believe in it anymore).
 
The best thing is to look them right in the eye when you ask a specific question. Their reaction will tell you volumes about how trustworthy they are. The really hard part is getting a chance to look them in the eye. Common people don't usually have that option. He is out as governor of Vermont. All he has left is another well paying political office or a normal real job. He isn't interested in a real job.
 
So far, the US Supreme Court has indeed ruled that each state can do whatever it wants with gun control.

That's what Dean supports.

Unfortunately, the case where that was decided was Cruikshank, in 1876, in which case the court ruled that a state could deny the right to self defense for the specific purpose of then killing them for daring to vote.

No, I'm not kidding. Read the case:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/92/542.html

Here's what the official history page from the US Congress has to say about it:

The Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The case grew out of a brutal massacre of blacks in the little Louisiana town of Colfax.

In Colfax whites burned the court house and murdered an unknown number of blacks. After the U.S. Army restored order, a federal grand jury indicted 72 white men. The United States Attorney brought nine to trial and won a conviction against William Cruikshank and two others.

Normally the federal government does not prosecute persons charged with murder. Control of ordinary crime has traditionally been the job of the states. In this case the U.S. Attorney used the 1870 Enforcement Act. This law makes it a crime for two or more persons to band together with intent to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen.

The Supreme Court threw out the convictions of Cruikshank and his cohorts. As it had in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court acted to protect states' power. "Every republican government," Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite wrote, "is in duty bound to protect all its citizens." He then added, "That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there."

Source:
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/history/19th.asp

This is what Dean supports. He's either ignorant, or a stone-cold racist. I don't want either in the White House.

:barf:

Oh, and if you think Cruikshank is a "dead case", think again. It is literally one of the foundation-stones for all US gun control, it's been cited in two 9th Circuit cases since 1990 that are still valid case law in the 9th (Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club vs. Van De Camp, which in turn is cited by Hickman vs. Block). California AG Bill Lockyer has a current position paper on the 2nd Amendment that cites to these, esp. Fresno Rifle, and hence relies on Cruikshank for support that California can do anything they want in gun control. An 1886 US Supreme Court case called Presser vs. Illinois relies entirely on Cruikshank for support; it's more common for courts to cite to Presser because it's not as "obviously butt-ugly" as Cruikshank. That's how the infamous Morton Grove case worked.

:banghead:
 
I hear you, Wyld. It's depressing. One of the reasons I like W so much is that you know where he stands. So far, he's done exactly what he said he'd do and you can predict his reaction to new data because you know who he is.

At the very least, a candidate has to show me that they understand the proper place of gov't in relation to it's citizens. Which is one of the great things about 2nd Amendment studies. The 2nd Amendment is the perfect litmus test in this regard. If a politician doesn't fully respect the 2nd, s/he doesn't understand how this country is supposed to work and therefore cannot be trusted to run any part of it.

- Gabe
 
I really dig socialists against gun control. "There is no private property that is not subject to confiscation for collective good. Oh, except guns".

Gun control is the confiscation of guns - other socialism entails confiscation of all else.

I wondered when listening to him (although as said above he would rubberstamp his base on GC even more than Dubya once elected) - what if I had my employer pay me in guns? If my yearly pay was 100 Sigs, would he confiscate 30 of them to give to those for whom voting is their profession?

Boggles the mind, eh?


:evil:
 
"You're either for freedom or you're not" isn't realistic for most people, who are for greater freedom in areas they understand or practice, and against it in areas they don't. Very few people are consistently pro-freedom in every category, and most of the people who think they are don't even come close.

Dean is pro-gun by Democrat standards, but he contradicts himself in that statement. Personally, I think the concept of different states with different laws is excellent. This is what the Founders had in mind; that if you didn't like the way Utah did business, you'd move to California and vice versa. It's not perfect, but it's better than a Federal behemoth of the type we currently deal with. That's why they didn't consider even the Bill of Rights to be binding on state or local governments, only the feds.

You already know this is all moot, or you wouldn't have bothered to tell us not to tell you. ;)
 
That's why they didn't consider even the Bill of Rights to be binding on state or local governments, only the feds.
Click to expand...

Not true.

It wasn't true even back in 1792 - the main body of the Constitution says that the Amendments would be part of the full Const., which in turn is binding on the states. And while the first 10 Amendments came "later", it was agreed at the time the main Const. was approved that there would be a BoR, and they knew roughly what would be in it as it was already under negotiation - including an RKBA clause already present in most of the original 13 state constitutions.

Barron vs. Baltimore (1833) was the first case where the US Supremes said otherwise, and it was a fraud.

Even if the court was right in Barron, the 14th Amendment applied the BoR to the states, after the South systematically and horrifically violated civil rights for all races. In 1859, South Carolina passed a law banning the preaching of anti-slavery from the pulpit, by both black or white preachers, and set the penalty for same: death. This of course violated the 1st Amendment six ways from Sunday, pardon the pun.

The US Supremes systematically gutted the entire 14th Amendment from 1872 up until about 1900, as it was designed to overturn key US Supreme Court decisions such as Barron, Dred Scott and others. They trashed the equal protection clause, due process clause, privileges and immunities clause, stomped all over the 15th Amendment (black voting), and ignored the need for states to honor the BoR.

They've since undone most of the damage but freakshows like Cruikshank remain.

No state has the right to abuse the civil rights of it's citizens.

Why in God's name can't people understand that?
 
WyldOne,

I think Jim hit the nail on the head: what is the proper relationship between a govt and it's citizens?

If the govt exists to serve the people, not the people existing to serve the govt, than it's wrong for he govt to confiscate people's property because letting them keep it would 'cost the government money'.

If a government exists to protect your rights, then gun control is wrong because it violates your rights, not because it would be counter-productive to let one of the worker bees die before they can more fully contribute to the hive.

All freedom is connected, and the more that people realize that the better off we'd all be. Far too many people are cafeteria constitutionalists, citing chapter and verse why their pet freedom should be protected, but they couldn't care about the freedom of others.

If you are against gun control, I'd ask "why"? If you believe that your body is your property, then no one has the right to inflict harm on it. Similarly, if my money is also my property, do I not have a right to it?

Most politicians have no consistent philosophy behind their positions, they do what will get them elected, so why should you place any trust in someone who is not concerned with your rights but only his reelection bid?

But, nobody has a good enough answer.

Or is it that no one has an answer you like?
 
Wyld, Wyld, Wyld,

Are you stirring up the political stew again?

Good to see ya. Been awhile.

Candidates you say? As in state or are you thinking federal level here? I mean, there you are in Boston asking questions about a Vermont gov. and you're probably trying to figure out which bandwagon to jump on and support, right? Primaries coming up.

I think you SHOULD play Brenda Starr and call him up. Twice. Once representing yourself pro 2nd; then a bit later call back as a pro-G.C. advocate. Ask whatever staff member (remember his/her name each time) that answers "Exactly" what his position is on G.C., State and Fed. level.

Or, you could skip the BS and just call and ask the highest level staffer you can get on the phone; tell him/her you're looking to volunteer your time, heart and soul if he answer's the following questions to your liking... your list of whatever germaine questions/positions here, not mine, but do try and slip in something about the unread, undiscussed and mandated approval of the recent Patriot Act (j/k).

Please report back in and let us know what he really means, would ya? Please?

Its in the interest of knowledgable debate vs. rampant speculation.

You're not thinking about helping out Bush/Cheney on 04 are ya?
Its nice knowing exactly where they stand, while they have a Repub voting base.

My read on his words are that he means what he says. Pretty typical Demo flavor with his loaded words in the first two sentences (hunting rifle, Uzi's?) with a little pinch of small "L" libertarian last sentence (state vs fed laws). Later, he recognizes the fed law as superior to state. He says nothing about "rights" pre-ordained and if he's smart, he won't. He's a Politician. One who creates nothing and spends a lot of other people's money for this and that (influence and power).

Simple, vanilla ice cream, no flavor either way. Follow his lobby group(s) money trail.

Don't give up the voting or helping out some candidate who can use your skills. This next election should be interesting.

Happy hunting.

Adios
 
I read his literature carefully, and I've heard give this same talk on TV. I think it's safe to say that Dean knows almost nothing about firearms or the Second Amendment. His position is carefully crafted, and I seriously doubt it represents any kind of core belief. It will change with the political tides.

That said, he has the best position among the Democrats, and I think he does have some instincts for liberty. So do lots of other folks, until the reins of power land in their laps.

I also have to say that there is no gun show loophole. The laws are the same regardless of where the gun is sold, and when I hear someone use the phrase "gun show loophole" that tells me they are either ignorant or mendacious. In Dean's case I am almost certain it is simple ignorance. He's heard the phrase so much he assumes that there actually is such a loophole.
 
The test of a politician wrt. gun control comes when the public is crying "gun ban" after some sort of massacre. Were republicans not in there STALLING further gun bans you think we would not have more? Columbine started this big rush, a rush that only started to die off recently.

Imagine Dean:

"Yeah, I'm pro second amendment; but I must put the children first".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Dean vs Bush on Gun Control
Replies
22
Views
870
CasualShooter
C
H
  • Locked
Howard Dean on Gun Control
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
cracked butt
C
W
  • Locked
May 2003, Dean claims Gun Control would not stop homicides.
Replies
21
Views
1K
Mordwyn
M
M
  • Locked
Dean on Gun Control - Aiming for the center
Replies
13
Views
946
w4rma
W
T
  • Locked
Dean supports "sensible gun laws"
Replies
17
Views
823
Hal
H
Back
Top