Gun Control Could Damage Democrats:Catching Fire From All Sides

Status
Not open for further replies.

Winchester 73

member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,576
Location
Miami,Florida
Ironically, Clinton and Obama debate in PA April 16,the anniversary of the VT massacre.Gun control questions seem unavoidable during the debate and do not bode well for either Democratic candidate.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/080325nj2.htm

ONLINE EXCLUSIVE
Catching Fire From All Sides
Gun Control Could Get Sticky For Dem Hopefuls In Pennsylvania
By Linda Douglass, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008

When Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton square off in an April 16 debate in Philadelphia, they may be forced to spend time discussing an issue neither has talked much about in this campaign: gun control. April 16 will mark one year since the murder of 32 students at Virginia Tech, the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will stage events around the country that day calling for stronger gun regulations, and for the candidates, gun control will be thrust on the table suddenly and unavoidably.

A 2002 poll found that 42 percent of Pennsylvania households have guns.

Guns are an especially potent issue in Pennsylvania, which is home to 300,000 members of the National Rifle Association -- the highest per capita NRA membership in the country, according to Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. A 2002 Quinnipiac University poll found that 42 percent of Pennsylvania households have guns, including 54 percent of union households, a key Democratic constituency.

Gun issues also stir up passions in Pennsylvania for another very different reason. Philadelphia has experienced an epidemic of gun killings: 331 people were shot to death last year, 321 with handguns.

Local officials have pleaded with the state Legislature to pass new regulations, including measures to limit handgun purchases to one gun a week, allow local governments to pass their own gun control laws and require handgun owners to report lost or stolen weapons. Not one has passed. Last December, black lawmakers stormed out of the Legislature to protest the failure to pass new gun restrictions, and Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell ordered each member to "put your rear end on the line" and vote for the laws -- all to no avail.

"Pennsylvania legislators, including many Democrats, respect gun rights," Cox said.

In the 2002 Quinnipiac poll, its most recent measure of gun issues in Pennsylvania, voters were divided in their views. Fifty-five percent said controlling gun ownership was more important than protecting gun rights, while 40 percent said protecting rights was most important. That tracks with a USA Today/Gallup national poll taken last month, which found that 49 percent want stricter gun laws, while 38 percent would like to leave the laws as they are.

Despite those indications of continued public support for tough gun laws, neither Obama nor Clinton is aggressively pushing for new gun restrictions. Clinton's Web site makes no mention of guns. Obama's does, under the heading of "Sportsmen," saying, "Protecting Gun Rights: Respect the Second Amendment."

On the campaign trail, both candidates have tried to demonstrate a comfort level with gun owners. In Wisconsin, Clinton described how her father took her hunting and said she once shot a duck. In New Hampshire last November, Obama told a gathering of rural voters that his wife worries about urban handgun violence but realized while driving in Iowa that she might want a gun for protection if she lived in a rural area. Insists the NRA's Cox: "They know gun control is a political loser."

Groups that lobby for tighter gun regulations argue that candidates who support stricter laws can win in states like Pennsylvania, where the NRA is politically powerful. Case in point: Rendell, an outspoken advocate of gun control who was elected handily and is popular statewide.

The Brady Legacy & The Candidates' Records
When Clinton was first lady, her husband pushed through the only significant federal gun control legislation passed in the last 15 years: the Brady bill, which requires a background check to purchase a gun; and the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, which Congress allowed to expire in 2004.

Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign, noted approvingly that Clinton and Obama both have long records supporting tighter regulations on guns. "We would be happy with either of them," he said.

In the wake of the Columbine High School shootings, Hillary Clinton urged Congress to pass laws restricting handgun sales to one a month and raising the legal age of handgun ownership to 21, according to her memoir.

"The name Clinton is synonymous with gun control to us," said Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's national spokesman.

As a senator, Clinton has supported numerous curbs on guns: extending the ban on assault weapons, requiring background checks at gun shows, allowing civil lawsuits to be filed against gun makers and gun dealers, requiring mandatory trigger locks for handguns and making state gun-trace records available to the public.

Obama supports all of the above as well. When he was running for Senate in 2003, he filled out a questionnaire saying he supports limiting handgun purchases to one a month. He also opposes laws allowing citizens (with the exception of retired police officers and military personnel) to carry concealed weapons.

The NRA and the Brady Campaign can point to only one noticeable difference in the candidates' Senate records on guns. Obama voted in favor of legislation prohibiting the use of federal money to confiscate weapons during a disaster. Clinton voted against it. The NRA has given both of them an "F" in its rating system.

In the past, both Obama and Clinton have supported requiring a license to purchase a handgun. In her 2000 Senate campaign, Clinton called for a national registry of all handgun sales. But during the presidential campaign, both candidates have backed away from that idea. Asked in a January debate whether she would pursue the licensing and registration of guns, Clinton said she would not.

"I am against illegal guns," she said, but "I am also a political realist, and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people."

Obama also said he would not push for gun licensing legislation as president, saying, "I don't think we can get that done." He called for tougher gun tracing procedures but added that he is sensitive to the concerns of gun owners.

"We essentially have two realities when it comes to guns in this country," he said during the debate. "You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership... and then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago." He added that it was important to "make sure the Second Amendment is respected."

How It Plays In Pennsylvania
Cox insisted that both candidates are pulling their punches. He argued that their support for tougher gun regulation may not affect them in the Pennsylvania primary, but it could push the Keystone State into the Republican column in the general election.

But he isn't exactly gushing about the GOP choice, either. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has infuriated the NRA over the last several years. Although McCain has voted consistently to protect gun rights -- opposing the assault weapons ban, trigger locks and the right to sue gun makers and dealers -- he also sponsored legislation requiring background checks at gun shows and even appeared in TV ads (subscription) promoting the idea in 2000.

Gun rights groups were even more enraged by McCain's crusade to pass the McCain-Feingold bill, which restricted the ability of outside groups to advertise in campaigns -- a provision that the Supreme Court later loosened. The NRA skewered McCain on the cover of its August 2002 magazine, with a headline that growled: "Putting a Muzzle on the First Amendment."

On the campaign trail, McCain has been resolute in opposing gun restrictions. After the shootings at Virginia Tech, he expressed deep sympathy for the victims, but, according to published reports, said he believes in "no gun control." Last month in Wisconsin, he called "the right to own a weapon" a "very important constitutional right."

As the Democrats try to answer to gun rights activists in Pennsylvania, they may face an opposing pressure from Philadelphia's political leaders, who are seeking tougher gun regulations. Some of them will heighten their visibility as well, joining in the events commemorating the massacre at Virginia Tech at the same moment the Democratic presidential hopefuls are preparing for the debate that night
 
Hillary in a nutshell...
"I am against illegal guns," she said, but "I am also a political realist, and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people."

She's a political whore.
 
Despite those indications of continued public support for tough gun laws,

Almost every gun article in the media has this statement. If public support was for tougher gun laws, why would any candidate have to fear about voting for them? They would be in the majority.
 
If public support was for tougher gun laws, why would any candidate have to fear about voting for them?
While the anti's try to portray gun owners as conspiracy theory nuts, they're the ones that think the relatively small and low income gun industry buys votes. Funny how that works isn't it? :)
 
"Political whore"!

I'd submit that the very definition of a prostitute is that of a female that trades her body for something of value. Certainly the profession is determinate on the relative position in a society of that person. IE: A starving woman in Darfur might trade sex for a bit of grain. Conversley, a woman starved for position and power might fit the appellation by virtue of continuing in a bankrupt marriage arrangement.
 
When Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton square off in an April 16 debate in Philadelphia, they may be forced to spend time discussing an issue neither has talked much about in this campaign: gun control.

They won't spend a minute discussing gun control. They will repeat the usual canned speech about 1) not taking guns away from hunters 2) taking guns off the streets and 3) that no one needs high capacity assault weapons.
If I'm more than a word or two off, I'll donate some $ to the Obama campaign.
 
They won't spend a minute discussing gun control. They will repeat the usual canned speech about 1) not taking guns away from hunters 2) taking guns off the streets and 3) that no one needs high capacity assault weapons.

And lately, they havent even said 3) much.
 
Slickette and Barack Discuss Gun Control

Folks -

The blood bath in the Democratic Party will run into June. The big discussion about guns will happen after Heller.

Both are lawyers, and the first debate after the ruling will tell the tale. If the oral argument is any clue, the right is an individual one. No discussion involved if it covers the State (or in this case, the District), so we look good there.

What is left is the level of scrutiny. That is the question that will be on the table.
 
his wife worries about urban handgun violence but realized while driving in Iowa that she might want a gun for protection if she lived in a rural area.

Jeez, most of the gun violence is in the big cities and Obama's wife would want one if she lived in a rural are where crime is very low. Go figure.
 
Actually, I read the situation differently.A pro-Heller decision takes gun control out of the political arena. The Dems get to say, "I don't like the fact the Supreme Court has declared the RKBA as individual right, but I will enforce the law of the land." That way they don't alienate the pro-gun working class who feel very put by Bushonomics. So they are fully empowered to say one thing and do another.

I think a pro-Heller decision would be a big win for Dems.

Mike
 
They won't spend a minute discussing gun control.

You may be right.But the moderator of this debate will be ABC's Charlie Gibson ,one of the MSM's more 'balanced journalists'.
If Charlie is as honest as I think he is,he will throw out the question of gun control to both candidates.
Then lets watch the squirming and the evasions begin.
 
Big Win

I think a pro-Heller decision would be a big win for Dems.

IF they completely abandon, I agree. I am tired of the Brady's and the rest, and would welcome such a change. We got other fish to fry on policy differences.

But until they really really really do, I am prepared to take them to the Tractor Factory in Stalingrad, if necessary. Freedom is that important.
 
A pro-Heller decision takes gun control out of the political arena. The Dems get to say, "I don't like the fact the Supreme Court has declared the RKBA as individual right, but I will enforce the law of the land."
I wonder if a Heller decision in our favor actually gives them the bully pulpit to declare any number of onerous laws to be 'reasonable restrictions' in alignment with the Heller decision.
 
Somehow their equal message of I would if I could but I can't isn't going to satisfy anybody. To the pro side all they can offer is you are safe from our bite only because our leash isn't long enough to reach you. To the anti side they offer apologies and a hope to keep pursuing their utopia. Hillary's statement makes it sound like the lawful gun owners want to empower street thugs. I hope these two destroy each other.
 
Speaking of the above quote on political w___s.

They are or 95% to 99% of them in BOTH and/or all parties are political w____s and their mouths move to pro gun to anti gun from one state to one speech after the other one. Pro gun = pro liberty issues = ALL of them... what will YOUR candidate do when it comes to REAL gun rights and ALL other liberty issues?

Are their lips moving? Well... they must be lying, eh? What about ALL of the Bill of Rights/Constitution? It is the SECOND that backs up the FIRST and all of them.

More posted in another section here... Activism, I think.

I would NOT vote for the top 3 because I happen to think that they are traitors and sell outs in more ways than one! ANTI GUN = ANTI LIBERTY = NWO Globalist control freaks = U.N. anti gun lovers = ANTI putting America first = ANTI you name it. I want a candidate, a real leader who LOVES the Constitution and what is GOOD about this Republic... who does not waiver just because of some feel good - fuzzy feeling when it comes to banning ANY gun because of anti gun Dems and anti gun Reps. I don't like anti LIBERTY politicians in any flavor!

Catherine
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
 
Last edited:
It Doesent Matter!!!!!!

Please stop with all the debate over Hillary and Obama...... Neither of them will win!!! America is still to racist over blacks and woman........

Just look at the charts!

HOW MANY BLACK PRESIDENTS HAVE WE HAD ZEROOOOOO

HOW MANY WOMAN PRESIDENTS HAVE WE HAD ZEROOOOOO

I'm not trying to be sexist or racist here, but cmon! Neither of them is going to happen...

:banghead:
 
LOL... yeah, well I do WORRY about such things.

I don't care about the color or sex. I want a Candidate who has a CLUE in pro gun issues and in that silly piece of paper called the CONSTITUTION that a man in a white colored (District of Criminals.) house called a G@#(%$ piece of paper.

Can you spell RINO and traitor? I can!

NO offense. I do NOT mean YOU.

Catherine
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
 
You know what is sad.

I personally would love to see a female president, or a minority president.................I just don't want to see either of these two as president and that is simply based on who they are and not what they are.

Course I don't personally want to see "our guy" either so I am basically SOL. :neener:

Heck just once give me a strong candidate who is a firm believer in the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional Republic, who will put aside all the meaningless smokescreen divisive issues and focus on what really matters and I don't care if they are a Vietnamese, woman with American Indian ancestry, with a nervous twitch and they are three feet tall and in a wheelchair. They have my vote. My point is Sex, color, creed....none of that matters to me, somebody who respects my rights as an American citizen and respects this country is what I want. I don't care what letter is after there name either.

end of rant.
 
Back to the topic at hand...

Pro-2A'ers seem to generally be VERY sensitive to a candidate who may infringe on their second amendment rights. These single issue voters will leave the party based on a an Anti-2A statement.

Anti-2A'ers seem to generally appreciate an anti-2A candidate but will not turn against the party if the candidate refuses to actively support anti-2A legislation.

Regardless of what people say in a public opinion poll, their inclination to vote based on their opinion jiving with that of their candidate is much stronger in the pro-2A crowd than in the anti-2A crowd.

Take THR for example - this is a collection of people who have a hobby and an interest that is positive, enjoyable, and based on a constitutional right. The desire of people here to continue their hobby is strong.

How many pro-gun-control message boards do you see? People simply can't get passionate about such a negative, pro-restriction, legislation-based cause.
 
If I were John McCain, and my opponent in a debate had raised the topic of assault weapons with the usual rigamarole, I would ask the Democrat to define what an assault weapon is on a technical level. If they are caught unawares, it gets explained to the public what "assault weapon" actually means, and makes the Democrat look like a boob for not knowing the issue backwards and forwards; if they accurately define "assault weapon," ask (rhetorically) if they mean the M1 carbine that the government had been selling to Americans less than half a century ago. If they talk about grandfathering individuals as is the practice in Canada, attack it on equal protection lines.
 
"Political whore"!

I'd submit that the very definition of a prostitute is that of a female that trades her body for something of value. Certainly the profession is determinate on the relative position in a society of that person. IE: A starving woman in Darfur might trade sex for a bit of grain. Conversley, a woman starved for position and power might fit the appellation by virtue of continuing in a bankrupt marriage arrangement.

You've just described every politician I can think of - there's no need to single out a female politician as a 'whore'. It's not High Road, and it's not firearms related.
 
Guys,

As mentioned earlier, Gun control will not be an issue in the Democratic Primary. It is very unlikely that it will be an issue in the General Election.

I'll explain.


Democrats have an unfavorable record on gun rights. They know it.

They also know that they want votes.

They also remember the debacle the '94 Assault Rifle Ban wrought them in the elections-- losing control of the House for the first time in 50 years!

McCain may well try to use guns as an issue, believing he is stronger than either of the others, but he really doesn't want to unless he has to.


Think about this... if you can get elected without adding any additional campaign "planks" to your platform, why wouldn't you? Why make promises that you may be held accountable to later or have tossed back into your face if you flip-flop?

No.

The smart anti-gun candidate makes NO promises on the issue of gun control during the campaign. They don't even talk about the issue. Whether spoken or not, the supporters of Hillary and Obama assume that they are pro-gun control.

So why give their opponents any ammunition to fire at them? And why make a promise that may or may not be in their political best interest later on as the winds of politics change?


I suspect that all of the candidates would much prefer to remain silent on the issue and then -- once they are in office-- do what they wish to do regarding guns, or do as the political winds dictate.

That way, they are not beholden to ANY group in any way. They will not be accused of turning their backs on supporters.


Is it good that gun control is a non-issue in this election? No... it is HORRIBLE. We should make it an issue.

Silence of the politicians doesn't make US safe. It makes THEM safe to act as they wish when in office.

We are effectively disenfranchised during this election by the reluctance of any candidate to truly address our concerns.


-- John
 
Is it good that gun control is a non-issue in this election? No... it is HORRIBLE. We should make it an issue.

Silence of the politicians doesn't make US safe. It makes THEM safe to act as they wish when in office.

We are effectively disenfranchised during this election by the reluctance of any candidate to truly address our concerns.

You could not be more precognitive.The faster this information gets out to general public who are generally oblivious to almost all the issues,the better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top