Is Dean's position on GC laws a plus or a minus to you?

[BoatsTwice]

It seems that Dean's position is one that may innoculate him against the NRA in the general election if he is the nominee, but it may also upset some of the base, preventing him from becoming the nominee. What's your view of his stance?

[eek]

1. Dude - try to sound less like ya on payroll!

I doubt anyone is afeared of giving an opinion but FPS try to sound less wonkish!

[BoatsTwice]

5. Sorry dude, I sounds likes I sounds

Howabout, what you think of Dean on guns? Help or harm?

[On the Road]

2. Gun Control Legislation is WAY Down the List of My Priorities

I'm actually undecided about what the second amendment means and what gun legislation I would really like to have. (I don't own a gun, BTW.)

Anything that helps the Dem candidate get elected is a plus in my book. I think this is a big unrecognized plus for Dean in electibility. It will also make it harded to depcit him as a stereotypical Eastern liberal.

[MoonAndSun]

3. Great question, BoatsTwice!!

I do not like guns, but I would not outlaw them. I think the Brady Bill is fair. But Dean's stance on guns does not matter to me. I feel he is the best candidate out there for us at this point in time. But I do feel that his gun stance will play well with the gun crowd.

Just my opinion. And by the way, welcome to DU!! :hi:

[BoatsTwice]

7. Thanks, it's nice to be here

[dsc]

4. Neither

I want vastly more federal gun control than he does but he favors more than I think is possible with a Congress that is remotely like our current one even if Sarah Brady were to become President. Under the most pro gun control circumstances that could have been dreamed up Clinton could only get slightly less than what Dean favors. Given that senario I see no reason why I shouldn't totally discount this as an issue.

[BoatsTwice]

6. Well that's the calculation isn't it?

Gun safety laws, as they are interestingly termed these days, don't play well in Vermont. It seems that Dean's pragmatism on this issue is a plus in red states or contested ones like Oregon, where Democrats and gun rights mix pretty easily.

[billbuckhead]

8. I won't vote for Dean over this issue.The NRA is as much an enemy as W

But it won't matter as Dean is unelectable nationwide. Rednecks won't vote for this guy if he carries 2 six shooters.

[BoatsTwice]

11. Unelectable?

Why?

[billbuckhead]

19. What state does he bring to the table that Gore didn't carry?

I don't see one. Maybe Nevada? That's a leaner anyhow. But I think the RepuKKKe fundies will destroy him in the South and Midwest. That's why Rove is gloating about him being the Dem nominee. He's a non-starter in the socalled "Heartland" as well as Dixie. I don't see Dean energizing minorities either. He's an elitist candidate to the extreme, another privileged preppie who quit being a drunk to grasp at the golden ring.

[Moosenose]

25. How about Tenn?

Hell, how about Virginia?

Dean is the perfect candidate for people who are sick of Bush...


And tell me....what states would the pro gun-control crowd win that Dean wouldn't?

[MrBenchley]

16. His stance on this issue is idiotic

and it may be it's a "code word," as he seems quite sensible on other issues.

I won't support him in the primaries, but I'm backing whatever horse comes out of the pack....if Dean gets through that's fine. If it's John Kerry, I'm backing John. If it's Carol Moseley-Braun, I'm backing Carol. If it's Dick Gephardt, I'm backing Dick. If it's Joe Lieberman, I'm backing Joe. If it's Al Sharpton, I'm backing Al.

[DianeK]

9. basically his postion is..

to let each state figure out for themselves. I live in Vermont, we have no gun control, in fact there is not even a concealed weapon law. That works here, may not work in other states, works here. Dean wants to keep the federal government out of issues that should be decided on the local level

[caledesi]

10. Dean Supporter, but don't agree w/ the GC

I am not a one-issue voter and 95% of his values are like mine. So...go Dean!

[Aaron]

12. It's a plus to me

I'm against a lot of the new gun regulation, including some stuff he's for, but he seems like the Democrat with the position closest to mine so it's a plus to me. I don't think anyone would do very well in the primaries if he/she took my view, so the moderate position he's taken is probably the best I'll get. I do think that moderation will help him in the general election, rather than the anti-gun position many Dem's take.

[Emoto]

13. minus - dangerous, in fact

I do not think that it is right to allow the states to restrict rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. By the logic that Dean employs, if ti is ok for a state to allow or restrict or outlaw guns, why would it not also be ok for states to restrict other rights? Today it is guns. Tomorrow, which other right will be restricted? IMHO, the Bill of Rights ought to apply equally for the entire country, and we cannot allow the less popular rights to be diminished without a constitutional convention.

[jody]

15. Emoto you say "I do not think that it is right to allow the states to

restrict rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights" but the states are limited by their own constitutions. Twenty eight states specifically acknowledge an individual's inalienable right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state. The 14th amendment says such rights are guranteed to all citizens, although SCOTUS has not ruled that RKBA is covered by the 14th.

The lack of a SCOTUS decision exists because no one has brought such a case to the court. If RKBA is in fact a state's rights issue, it becomes an issue of a right retained by the people under the 9th which would bring the 14th into the matter.

All of that is obviously my opinion but most people focus exclusively on the 2nd and ignore other possibilities. Kentucky and Alabama have strict prohibitions against legislators making laws that infringe upon rights. Alabama's Constitution is like Kentucky's and says:

QUOTE
Construction of Declaration of Rights.

That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.
UNQUOTE

Given the current prohibition in the Alabama and Kentucky constitutions, I don't see how it could be "legal" in those two states to change their constitutions and eliminate RKBA as a right.

Even if the 2nd is ruled a "collective right for a state's militia to defend a free state", the citizens of Alabama and Kentucky still have their "individual RKBA for defense of self". Twenty six other states have that same right but their constitutions are not explicit about execpting them out of the general powers of government.

ON EDIT ADD
The following annotation to the 14th might be useful.
SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

[slackmaster]

14. Neutral - I disagree with him but he's better than other Dems

I'm favoring Dean mainly because of his intellect, education, and broad experience as a medical doctor and governor.

I agree with Emoto that states have no business infringing on rights enumerated in the BoR. But at least he respects the right to a greater degree than any of the other Democratic candidates.

[primavera]

17. A minus, but not a dealbreaker

Personally, I'd rather we followed the European model with respect to gun control laws, by which guns are either extremely strictly regulated, or banned altogether, so I'd be happier if Dean took a more restrictive policy on the proliferation of guns in this country. But I know that's not going to happen in this country and I respect that liberals need to be realistic and willing to compromise some in their expectations of the candidates they'll support. And in the overall scheme of things, we face even more terrifying problems than the lack of responsible gun control legislation, so what the hell, I can probably still vote for Dean and sleep at night, despite his soft position on this important issue. Never let it be said that lefties aren't willing to compromise on issues near and dear.

[Township75]

18. BIG + for me and many others!

This helps Dean alot. James Carville once said on crossfire that GC is a losing issue for Dems and those that it matters to will vote Dem regardless if it is a pro 2A Dem or anti 2A dem. So according to him it's a losing issue. My experience with people is that it is a losing issue too, and more importantly, it is just wrong.

Dean will neutralize an issue that hurt Gore. Dean won't have to fight for MI and PA like Gore did. Both states have high union membership so they should be very Blue. They also have high NRA membership, which usually means Red for presidential elections. I can tell you because I am from PA that many union voters vote red because of GC.

Dean has an excellent record with the NRA; A+ rating if I recall correctly. He will NOT get the NRA endorsement, because if 2 pro gun contenders fight for an office, the NRA always endorses the encumbent, or if there is not one, remains neutral.

Bush gives the impression of being good to gun owners, so he will get the endorsement. BUT, if gun owners have nothing to fear from Dean, they are not going to give a f*ck about the endorsement, because they will not feel their rights are endangered.

So, as I see it, it is a + for Dean. And I will be volunteering for his campaign to make an effort so that he is our nominee.

[billbuckhead]

20. Dean will lose both PA and MI over "gay marriage" and Vermont socialism

Dean is disaster and it shows how out of touch most Democrats are with middle America. If all we care about is winning, let's compromise on everything and run Zell Miller.

[slackmaster]

21. Bill, how would you vote on Zell Miller v. George W. Bush?

n/t

[MrBenchley]

22. Zell Running for President?

Guess he's vying to replace Jefferson Davis?

[Township75]

23. You may be correct.

I don't disagree with what you have written. I can't speak for MI on those 2 issues, but I can for PA and that will really, really hurt Dean there.

But when compared to the gun issue, I still think he gains votes. Most Dems that cross party lines due to the gun issue in PA may not like gay marriage or socialism, but they do not necessarily view it as something effecting them individually, so its influence on their votes is reduced somewhat. Because many of them own guns, or don't own guns but support the 2A (like I once was), GC is a stronger motivator to sway a vote because that does effect them individually.

But again, you may be correct that those 2 issues will cost Dean PA and MI, regardless of his stance on guns.

[jhfenton]

24. Dean's position on GC laws is no better...

than most other Dems at the national level. He supports the unconstitutional "scary-looking semi-automatic rifle ban" and unconstitutional gun-grabbing laws in DC, NYC, CA, IL, NJ, etc. I want a candidate to roll back the unconstitutional laws, not be satisfied with the status quo.

<rant>
It is my biggest gripe with the national Democratic party. It's not an issue at the local level. I'm on city council, and we (the Dems) have an 8-1 advantage on council. But 7 of 9 the nine council members own firearms. Most of us have big problems with the position of state and federal Democratic candidates on gun control issues.

What happens to the liberal belief in the expansive construction of civil rights when we talk about self-defense and the 2nd Amendment? I don't get it.

There are no Democrats in the race yet that I can whole-heartedly support. Maybe they don't exist any more at the national level.
</rant>

[Aaron]

26. Bush is pro AWB too

So I don't know that people who are one issue gun voters will have much of an otpion in this election. Dean supports 'closing the gunshow loophole' or something like that but from what I understand that's not very significant. On the big points, like the AWB, both Dean and Bush agree. The only other possibility is Lieberman I *think* but I don't know his position off the top of my head. I think he claimed he was Pro-RKBA in a debate but that's all I remember.

[BullDozer]

27. but....

Bush is pro AWB too

Didn't he say something along the lines of he'd sign the renewal if it came to his desk?

Ever think that he might do everything he can to keep it from getting to his desk?

[Aaron]

29. I'm sure he has no desire to see it reach his desk

but if it gets there he'd sign it. And if it gets to Dean's desk he'd sign it. If the Congress won't pass it with Bush in office I'm not clear why they'd pass it with Dean in office. GOP wants to keep house and senate seats not lose them, from what I can tell they'd lose the seats of those (R) rep's who voted yes to pass the AWB if that ever came up. IIRC in 1992 gun-owners failed to turn out for Bush 1 causing him some electoral troubles. Meanwhile Dean has said he'd change his mind on a position if presented with good evidence he was wrong. If the AWB is bad, and I think we can probably show that it is, then maybe he'd change his mind when he reached office?

[BullDozer]

30. Hot potato

IIRC in 1992 gun-owners failed to turn out for Bush 1 causing him some electoral troubles.

No political animal should want to touch the AWB.

There was indeed backlash to Bush Sr. for his 1989 ban on some imported weapons that and a 3rd party candidate (Perot) both hurt him very badly, badly enough that it was a mortal wound.

I'm sure he has no desire to see it reach his desk
but if it gets there he'd sign it. And if it gets to Dean's desk he'd sign it

But which one might push hard to get it to his desk as opposed to do everything he can to keep it from ever getting there? I say that Bush is pushing congress hard to make sure it never gets to his desk so he can look at the camera and say " well, uhhhhhhhh I can't sign what uhhhhhhhh they don't give me"

Meanwhile Dean has said he'd change his mind on a position if presented with good evidence he was wrong. If the AWB is bad, and I think we can probably show that it is, then maybe he'd change his mind when he reached office?

By the time anyone gets to office the ban will have expired already, whether or not it is renewed before then is up for debate. From the viewpoint of political survival I say that letting it sunset and then enacting new legislation is the worst way to go. It would offend both the anti-AWB (what? you had it gone and you made up new laws?!!!) and pro-AWB (How dare you let that important legislation sunset!!!!!) factions. To win back some (you won't win back all of either side) of either side the legislation that is passed would have to be much better then the prior version for whatever side is to be sated by the new legislation (either much less restrictive or much more restrictive.) Votes will be lost, which will hurt more the votes from the people you just levied more restrictions upon (swing voters, what will swing them to D or R?) or the votes from those you think you weren't tough enough at first? Who's likely to be offended the most?

[Aaron]

31. Good points

Perhaps the best for Dem' RKBA supporters is if Dean gets elected and some Repub. or Dem. senator blocks any attempt to pass the AWB again? Weighing my gun rights against getting Bush out I choose getting Bush out. Although I guess I'd like to try to figure out the best possible scenario to get him out while keeping my gun rights. Any ideas?

[Township75]

28. Luke, It's A Trap!

he did say that recently, but I think it is a trap from Dems.

The repubs would love to make guns an issue again like in 94 and 2k. They are hoping that some anti 2A Dems would hear this from the pres, and begin pushing for the renewal of the AWB, thereby giving the repubs a winning issue.