Now, what is Kerry's position on gun control?

[Eloriel]

Someone refresh my memory, please?

Eloriel

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Here it is

Increased Gun Safety: John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place. He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime.html

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I like it all except for the locks...

Not that I have a problem with gun locks at all, but I think that trying to requiring guns to be sold with them will give the NRA a huge attacking point. I liked the clinton approach, getting the companies to do it voluntarilly.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. I don't even have kids and I bought a trigger lock with my last pistol

I think it was 8 or 10 bucks. Is that really so much to ask?

As far as the NRA, there is no doubt they will be backing Bush in 2004. But I think the NRA rhetoric is starting to wear thin -- even in places like here in Montana. They targeted (pun intended) Max Baucus after he voted for the assault weapons ban and we've re-elected him twice.

NRA ads saying "Kerry wants to require child safety locks with handgun purchases!" probably would do more to turn out the Democratic base than anything else.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Good point...

I never thought about it like that.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. You don't have to be an extremist to believe in the second amendment

[Melinda]

4. "slimy son of a bitch"? Your rhetoric doesn't belong here.

NONE of our DEMOCRATIC candidates deserve such a personal rebuke - your words are inappropriate and offensive.

Kerry's position on guns is the issue, period. And Senator Kerry deserves OUR respect, regardless of whom we may now support in this race.

Like Will Pitt would say -- "Bad juju".

[dkf]

5. Kerry...what a crack up.

"Senator John Kerry blasted away at Howard Dean on Friday, accusing him of currying favor with the National Rifle Association and opposing an assault-weapons ban that Mr. Kerry and other supporters of gun control fought for in the 1990's.

Then Mr. Kerry took his 12-gauge shotgun and blew two pheasants out of the sky in two shots."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/politics/campaigns/01KERR.html

And check this out:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031031/480/dcn10210312208

[Eloriel]

6. That NYT article is fabulous

A riot, actually. I loved this:

So it was that Mr. Kerry spoke out for gun control one minute and then led photographers on a classic hunter's photo opportunity the next.

In duck boots from L. L. Bean, blue jeans, two flannel shirts and an orange safety vest, Mr. Kerry tramped through the brush of an old cornfield with a local farmer's 9-year-old English pointer, Buck, trailing. Less than five minutes into his expedition, before journalists could get out of their cars and hurdle a barbed-wire fence to record the moment, Buck rousted a bird, Mr. Kerry took aim and fired, and the first blood of the Democratic presidential campaign was spilled.

Mr. Kerry proved quite the shot. Moments later, he leveled his gun suddenly and squeezed his trigger once more, and another pheasant fell to the ground, this time with an appreciative pack of journalists witnessing the kill.



Go, L.L.Bean! Go, Pheasants!


Eloriel

[IndianaGreen]

7. Kerry is waffling on gun control

as he waffles on just about anything else. I recall Kerry defending gun owners rights, just to contradict himself in another interview in which he would support additional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, such as mandatory trigger locks.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. so you say....

but that doesn't make it true. of course this kind of "Goreing" worked for the GOP.

[Padraig18]

13. NO! Kerry doesn't 'waffle'!

Kerry 'nuances'... :eyes:

[blm]

14. Why would intelligent people confuse gun control with sport hunting

using legal hunting guns?

Why would anyone proffer something so amazingly obtuse?

[w13rd0]

9. Kerry has been an adequate Senator...

...and I welcome his return to the Senate.

[blm]

16. adequate? If it wasn't for Kerry, how far along would the BFEE be

in this world? If it wasn't for Kerry's exposure of BCCI and IranContra, there would be much left unknown about their plans in the world. And we likely wouldn't have had 8 years of Clinton.

[killbotfactory]

10. Pretty much the same as Dean's

Only he's for a useless but symbolic child-safety lock law.

[Fabio]

11. I think it is really sad

looking at the attacks on this thread, that more DUers arent saying "Thank You" to Senator Kerry. Gun Control is an important position to the urban base, and Senator Kerry's (and other Dems) responsible support of it on a federal level saves lives. However, we all are too familiar with the GOP/NRA saying that Dems want to take our guns away.

I think this image, along with the fact that Kerry went 2/2 (which is very, very hard to do), and that he is a vet, goes a long way towards substantiating the fact that democrats aren't rural wimps and that gun control and the second amendment are fully compatible.

That will be healthy to any nominee.

[Padraig18]

15. 'Rural wimps'?

:wtf: is a 'rural wimp', pray tell?

[jody]

20. A recent government report examined 51 studies and said

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

QUOTE
Summary

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
UNQUOTE {emphasis added}

Gun grabbers who want to ban handguns are not supporting the Dem platform. If they did not exist, Karl Rove would have to create and fund a similar group to keep AWOL and his cabal in office.

[jody]

19. Replies to this thread demonstrate the varied meanings of "gun control".

I believe Sen. Kerry supports the Democratic Party Platform at http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html that says:
QUOTE
Strong and Sensible Gun Laws. A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners.
UNQUOTE {emphasis added}

Our party position recognizes that before the Constitution was written or amended, states acknowledged that citizens had the inalienable right to defend self and property. Some of those states went on to recognize each citizen's right to bear arms in defense of self and state.

Government, i.e. SCOTUS, has ruled that federal, state, and local governments are not obligated to protect an individual,

Government is unable to prevent criminals, who do not have inalenable rights, from keeping and bearing firearms,

Government allows law enforcement officers to keep and bear arms for defense against criminals,

Citizens have an inalienable right to defend self and property against criminals, and firearms are the most efficient and effective choice.

IMO, those who would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to keep and bear arms to exercise their inalienable right to defend self and property are really saying law-abiding citizens are less important to society than criminals. :shrug: