Bartholomew Roberts
Member
For some time now, the Democratic party has been putting out news articles about how they are "moderate" on guns and how they are changing their platform.
There have even been strong voices in the Democratic party arguing that supporting gun control legislation has continually cost the Democrats at the polls.
The Democrats ARE starting to come around on this issue, albeit with such glacial speed that firearms are likely to be obsolete before they complete their policy change. For example, in 2000 the debate within the Democratic party was over how much firearms registration we should have and whether handguns could be banned entirely. In 2004, Democrats had learned to at least keep their mouth shut on the issue.
However, the Democrats still have one big flaw. They think that if they pay lip service to the Second Amendment, they won't need to follow through on action. They think so little of gun owners that their Presidential nominee skipped hundreds of votes to avoid offending any small interest group during his primary; but took Super Tuesday off to come to Washington and vote for more gun control.
During this vote, he voted in support of a ban on centerfire rifle ammo, a ban of semi-auto rifles, background checks for private sales, gutting lawsuit preemption for gun manufacturers, and a host of other issues. This same candidate claims to "support the Second Amendment as it has been interpreted in our country" (for those who miss his "nuanced" views of things, he is saying he supports a collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment)
The Democratic Presidential nominee had his picture taken with Feinstein, Schumer, and Kennedy following the defeat of S.1805 - the pro-gun bill he helped defeat on Super Tuesday. This nominee was proud to come out during the primary and attack Howard Dean for even suggesting that the Dems firearms policy stance was out of tune with America. He is proud to stand with the troika of gun control. He is proud to vote for a ban on centerfire rifle ammunition DURING AN ELECTION YEAR.
A Kerry win in 2004 will completely erase whatever small gains the pro-gun faction in the Democratic party has made over the past four years and convince the Democrats that they can continue to carry out whatever actions they want.
Let's put it this way - it took the Democrats losing practically every gun rights related vote from 1994-2000 to get even the tiny changes in platform we see today. If Kerry, who took an unabashedly pro-gun control stance and is rated 100% by the Brady Campaign over the past 20 years, gets elected it will be seen as proof that the gun vote is useless to the Dems.
Gun owners who support the Democratic party and want to see it respect gun rights owe it to themselves to show some tough love and vote for someone else this election.
There have even been strong voices in the Democratic party arguing that supporting gun control legislation has continually cost the Democrats at the polls.
The Democrats ARE starting to come around on this issue, albeit with such glacial speed that firearms are likely to be obsolete before they complete their policy change. For example, in 2000 the debate within the Democratic party was over how much firearms registration we should have and whether handguns could be banned entirely. In 2004, Democrats had learned to at least keep their mouth shut on the issue.
However, the Democrats still have one big flaw. They think that if they pay lip service to the Second Amendment, they won't need to follow through on action. They think so little of gun owners that their Presidential nominee skipped hundreds of votes to avoid offending any small interest group during his primary; but took Super Tuesday off to come to Washington and vote for more gun control.
During this vote, he voted in support of a ban on centerfire rifle ammo, a ban of semi-auto rifles, background checks for private sales, gutting lawsuit preemption for gun manufacturers, and a host of other issues. This same candidate claims to "support the Second Amendment as it has been interpreted in our country" (for those who miss his "nuanced" views of things, he is saying he supports a collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment)
The Democratic Presidential nominee had his picture taken with Feinstein, Schumer, and Kennedy following the defeat of S.1805 - the pro-gun bill he helped defeat on Super Tuesday. This nominee was proud to come out during the primary and attack Howard Dean for even suggesting that the Dems firearms policy stance was out of tune with America. He is proud to stand with the troika of gun control. He is proud to vote for a ban on centerfire rifle ammunition DURING AN ELECTION YEAR.
A Kerry win in 2004 will completely erase whatever small gains the pro-gun faction in the Democratic party has made over the past four years and convince the Democrats that they can continue to carry out whatever actions they want.
Let's put it this way - it took the Democrats losing practically every gun rights related vote from 1994-2000 to get even the tiny changes in platform we see today. If Kerry, who took an unabashedly pro-gun control stance and is rated 100% by the Brady Campaign over the past 20 years, gets elected it will be seen as proof that the gun vote is useless to the Dems.
Gun owners who support the Democratic party and want to see it respect gun rights owe it to themselves to show some tough love and vote for someone else this election.
