Dean's Gun Views Attacked

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48945-2003Oct5.html

Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) scolded Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean for his friendly relations with the National Rifle Association during a Capitol Hill rally last week to drum up support for renewal -- and strengthening -- of the federal ban on assault weapons.

While other speakers stuck to the subject of assault weapons, Kennedy assailed Dean, saying he was "saddened" that one of his party's leading presidential candidates is "pro-NRA." He suggested that Dean has "compromised his principles" as a physician by opposing stronger federal gun controls.

Kennedy has endorsed Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and campaigned on his behalf. But Kennedy told a reporter after his remarks that he had not discussed with Gephardt his plans to attack Dean on gun control.

"This is a personal issue with me, and I'm very disturbed at the fact that people are not paying attention to Dr. Dean's record" on guns, said Kennedy, nephew of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, both of whom were assassinated by guns.

[dolstein]

1. I'm surprised we haven't heard more of these attacks

Frankly, I think Dean's NRA ties are overrated -- after all, he supports all of the current gun laws (including renewal of the 1994 ban on semiautomatic weapons) and opposes a bill the NRA supports that would limit liability of gun dealers for crimes committed with firearms they sell. That's more than enough to cost Dean any NRA support in the 2004 election.

But still, Dean has often played up his "A" rating from the NRA, so it's only fair to go after on the one issue where his views seem to be out of line with the left-wing party activists.

[w4rma]

16. Dean's specific position on gun regulation

…
Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want.
…
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) on gun regulation (states' rights, pro-gun)
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35583

[La_Serpiente]

2. Why do you think Gore lost Tenessee?

I agree that guns are bad in its entirety. But as a tactical measure, why do you think Gore lost West Virginia and Tenessee? It was the guns.

The NRA is probably one of the most influential groups in America. Many NRA members wouldn't accept Gore proposals on gun control...what makes you think that they'll accept any other Democratic Nominees posistion on guns?

I would also like to note that Gen. Wesley Clark shares the same posistion on guns with Dean.

Taken from DraftWesleyClark:

Clark has implied that gun ownership is primarily a local issue. He also believes that assault weapons should be banned for the general public, stating, "people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them." (CNN's Crossfire, 06/25/03)

[Abe Linkman]

8. The General is correct, but his logic makes no sense

"Clark has implied that gun ownership is primarily a local issue. He also believes that assault weapons should be banned for the general public, stating, "people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them."

He says he favors banning assault weapons. But, assault weapons have been "banned" (illegal) for many years, and he acknowledges they aren't readily available when he says "you like 'em, join the Army".

General Clark: If you liked Clinton, you might also like Clark.

[La_Serpiente]

13. The thing on assault weapons

Actually, Assault Rifles have been banned since 1994. However, the expiration date on the law banning them is coming up. I think the expiration date ends next year.

Dean favors banning them too. Also, if the law is going to expire and it is not renew, perhaps they should join the army.

[NickB79]

30. Actually, since 1934

Fully automatic weapons have been highly restricted to US civilians since 1934, requiring extensive background checks, tax fees, and lots of red tape to legally own one. New fully automatic weapons have not been legally manufactured for sale to authorized civilians in the US since 1986. Therefore, the 1994 AWB is a misnomer; it did not cover any true assault weapons (the definition of an assault rifle is one that is capable of selective fire, not just semi-automatic fire). It banned various firearms that were semi-automatic only in function, just as many fully legal hunting arms are, and oftentimes the bans were based only on physical appearance rather than function. For example, things as silly and useless as bayonet lugs or flash hiders can qualify a gun as an assault weapon.

[WillyBrandt]

15. Why did Clinton win Southern States?

Not because of guns, but because he could culturally connect with voters down there. Gore could not. I'm not sure Dean could, either, NRA rating or not.

[ozone_man]

41. Gore was from Tenessee, but he didn't have the same charisma

as Clinton. Al was a bit stiff. Junior with all his misspoken words was somehow able to come off sounding better to the general public. Clinton was a true orator, capable of conveying emotion.

What Dean lacks in Southern roots, he may gain in his ability to speak from the heart and, in my opinion, he probably doesn't use as much of a script. He slips up a little sometimes, but his message comes through loud and clear and I would say moving. He needs Edwards to balance the ticket (my choice).

Gun control issue is tricky, but I think Dean has got it right. You can't impose the same rules on California as you do for the hunting states like Tenessee, Vermont, and 10 or 15 other rural states. The big city crime areas kind of need a different set of rules. Let the states decide.

[saigon68]

3. patrick kennedy has never worked in a liquor store at night.

nor has he worked anywhere at all.

He has never had a burglar enter his house, nor been afraid of robbers and rapists.

He's apparently never been mugged and probably has armed guards like rosie odonnell.

Its wonderful he's in such a perfect(rich) world.

[billbuckhead]

6. Coming from a law enforcement family, we won't vote for Dean over this....

issue. Stopping terrorism begins at home. America's promiscuous gun laws force our citizens to live in fear of the highest murder rate of advanced nations. We all live under the gunsights of the right wing gun lobby and their Kulturwar fellow travelers.

[RamboLiberal]

11. Are you going to vote for Dean if he ends up the Dem nominee?

Seems to me that stance is as silly as the the voters who listen strictly to the NRA and will vote for Bush no matter what.

Being a one-issue voter IMHO is not very smart.

Personally I think Dean and Clark's gun stances are sensible. And as a female who lives alone and is a gun owner I appreciate my right to own a firearm and in my state to carry one.

[saigon68]

12. we live in fear because we are terrorised by thugs and hoodlums

these creeps will smash in your face and take your wallet. they will steal your car---they will stab you in the face for no reason at all gangs of young criminals roam the streets with bats killing people.

There was a triple murder in milwaukee last week where a 3 time convicted felon, used a gun he had stolen to shoot 3 guys in the head because tyrone (one of the guys now pushing up daiseys) and 2 of his friends dissed the shooters girlfriend. this spring a convicted felon disarmed a cop in the milwaukee county courthouse and went on a shooting spree.

Milwaukee was also the place last summer where 15 children (they were angry with the guy because he told them to be quiet) beat the man to death with bats and shovels.

there are thousands of police in milwaukee and this year alone there were 95 murders.


this is NOT terrorism it is thugs, criminals and hooligans.

[bluestateguy]

17. Bad people will get guns no matter what

Remember this: the Klansmen, gay bashers, Confederate flag waving yahoos and anti-abortion extremists will get guns no matter what. I think the issue takes on a different character for people on the Left when we think about it in these terms.

[Ivory_Tower]

7. And nobody in his family has ever been a victim of gun violence.

Right?

His world's not that perfect.

I'm going to bed....

[saigon68]

24. a lot of young men in iraq are victims of "gun violence"

the victims in the pentagon were victims of airplane and box cutter violence. the Israelis in Haifa were victims of dynamite violence.

and about 1/4 million (out of 3 million) Vietnamese were victims of naplam dropped by an airplane violence.

i respect your opinion though, i just don't understand your reasoning? how are you going to disarm amerika?

[Abe Linkman]

4. Not much of an argument from Patrick

He certainly didn't defend HIS views; he just attacked Dean because Dean apparently doesn't oppose a large organization which was formed to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights. One wonders what Mr. Patrick would have told Iraqis who might have been able to get rid of Saddam Hussein sooner, if they had had the right to own firearms.

This focus on firearms is misplaced and any thoughtful sociologist or criminologist knows that if we want to reduce the crime rate, then we need to look at ideas that will help close the economic gap between rich people like Mr. Kennedy and the millions upon untold millions of citizens who are quietly, desperately trying to hang on and not fall thru the cracks. Mr. Kennedy would do well to be even more vocal about using the wealth of this country to provide a better life for those less fortunate than his wealthy clan.

[lcordero]

5. This is not a good issue for people that want to attack Dean

More and more people are going to be looking at "RKBA" as a civil liberty. I don't own a firearm(and I hope to never have to own one) but I support RKBA because I support civil liberties.

Mr.Kennedy should realize that there are people that are firing those guns.

[billbuckhead]

9. Where's your proof? Any links beside the NRA?

I don't trust any candidate with NRA rating of A. More guns aren't the answer to our crime problems, race problems or our civil liberties problems.

[lcordero]

22. "an armed society is a more polite society" as said by Robert A. Heinlein

The framers of the Constitution put in a Bill of Rights for a reason just as they had a reason to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Every part of the Bill of Rights is as relevant today as it was more than 200 years ago.

I consider gun control to be racist just as detailed in this site:
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/cramer.racism.html

I detest the NRA for having people like Nugent representing them. Somebody on these boards mentioned a progressive gun rights lobby. I'm going to look it up later on since I like the idea of having more rights instead of less rights.

On edit: I found out the name of the lobby, it is the National Black Sportsman's Association. I wonder if they take Caucasoid Latinos:)

[Dogmudgeon]

35. Cicero and the NRA

The "polite society" quip harkens back to Cicero. However, heavily armed societies are usually less polite than lightly-armed societies.

That said, I actually am in favor of RKBA, but I think the key to civil firearm use is "well-regulated". I do not consider it to be a Constitutional problem to require a higher standard of legal competency of firearms owners and users.

This, of course, is more of an issue for the Crime/Justice forum. I am not listing it for debate, but to illustrate that at least some (and probably most) liberals are not the "gun grabbers" that Chuck Heston and Wayne LaPierre accuse us of being.

My own suggestion is that more Liberals join the NRA itself, and actively promote a progressive agenda with the NRA. Such a move would dramatically reduce the right-wing power of that group, as well as take the wind out of the sails of the rightist/militia movement. (If the NRA then decides to kick people out for ideological heresy, its tax-free status would be in jeopardy.)

Such a move need not detract from gun-control advocacy, either. I would hope that it would lead to a better dialog, rather than the usual screeching from the Enfamil wing of the "conservative" movement.

It would also give lefties a much better understanding of the political uses and power of private (that is, non-state) firearm ownership.

--bkl

[maxanne]

40. guns aren't the cause of the problems

either. Perhaps instead of blaming the weapon, we should do something about the causes of gun violence.

[ozone_man]

42. I'm in full agreement with that.

Bigger problem is what is wrong with our society that causes violence.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Yes it is

Dean's stance is dangerous and foolhardy. But not for the reasons stated here. He advocates local control of a constitutional right. Either it IS or it ISN'T guaranteed. (It is, btw.) Either way, it's a national, not a local issue. Try a local version of the 1st Amendment and all you get is chaos.

[Abe Linkman]

20. Very good point.

What a perceptive, prescient person you are. Very good point.

[w4rma]

23. Name an elected Democrat who doesn't advocate that. Just one. (n/t)

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Not my job

My job as I see it to point out that Howard Dean plans on localizing parts of the Constitution. If a Repug said the same thing about the 1st Amendment, many here would be ready for revolution. His comments about the 2nd Amendment show how either naive or dangerous he is.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. Tenth Amendment.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[HFishbine]

45. In Fairness

Muddle, I'm somewhat of a Dean supporter, and I have to say I agree with the point you raise. From a practical, gut-level, Dean's position makes sense, but when looking at the underlying principle, he's on shakey ground. How can one argue for different state-by-state standards on gun control and not expect the same to be applied to abortion, for example?

On Edit (comment to RummyIs): I'm not sure of your argument, but since the Constitution secifically grants the right to gun ownership, it is a right that does not fall to the states. (Not sure if I'm agreeing with you or arguing with you...)

[bluestateguy]

10. Oh! Boo Hoo! The gun grabbers don't like Dean! What are we to do?

We've done enough cow towing to the gun grabbers for the last 20 years and you know where it has gotten us? THE MINORITY PARTY!!!! Why is it that these folks are the same people who piss and moan about the Patriot Act (and rightfully so), yet they want the government to have ever more powers over people's right to own a firearm. The government says "trust us", when it comes to the Patriot Act, and we say "yeah, right". These people say "trust us" when it comes to more gun control and I say "NEVER!"

Stick to your guns Governor Dean and General Clark. These folks' 15 minutes are up!!!

[Dogmudgeon]

36. Less boo, more hoo

Think about why the gun control movement got started, and became so absolutist. Here's the reasons I see:

1. Ideologically motivated slayings of several major liberal icons, including (but not limited to) JFK, RFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and John Lennon.

2. The only substantial pro-firearams-rights organizations were part of the radical-conservative movement, often Jim Crow pro-segregationists, the KKK, and the like.

There is a major gap in liberal and progressive advocacy of its (of our) own RKBA agenda. Name-calling from either side won't work; the best solution would probably be to develop a liberal form of firearms advocacy. It will destroy RKBA as the right-wingers' private little bludgeon and introduce an element of actual informed debate over gun rights and the controls needed for "well-regulated" firearms policies.

Right now, nearly everybody who takes part in gun policy struts around invoking their own favorite symbols, and very little actual progress gets made. Meanwhile, we have ineffective laws, a huge number of cheap, occasionally dangerous firearms in use by incompetents (like criminals, kids, etc.), paperwork headaches for responsible firearms users, and (a post-Clinton return to) an increasingly violent society.

An opportunity for grabbing political power exists; dare we take it?

--bkl

[Man_in_the_Moon]

37. One thing, The Jim Crowers, and the KKKers support gun control.

As a matter of fact they are the ones that STARTED gun control.

Granted it was/is a selective gun control, much like their support for a selective 'vote control'.

But gun control did not start with the assassinations of JFK, or MLK, or RFK, it started with keeping guns out of the hands of slaves and free blacks.

Heck the Florida Supreme Court as late as the 1940s still held that Florida gun control laws ONLY applied to blacks, not to whites, because 'that is why they were passed'.

[NNN0LHI]

14. I think this issue will be small potato's in the grand scheme of things

Just my 2 cents.

Don

[La_Serpiente]

19. ARe a lot of Gun owners also a part of a union?

Are a lot of gun owners also part of a union?

[NNN0LHI]

26. There were. But many don't have jobs any more and had to hock them n/t

[Bluzmann57]

28. I belong to a Union

and don't own any guns. Are you trying to suggest that Union members are nut scratching, knuckle dragging folks? Most of us just want to have our little piece of the American dream and if it involves gun ownership for hunting or self protection only, then what is the problem? I agree that there is no real reason for handguns, a person certainly is not going to bag any animals with them. I think Governor Dean is right though, when he says it should be a states issue. There will never be a gun ban in a state like Wyoming, or a state like that where there are an awful lot of wide open spaces and not a lot of people, nor should there be.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. The so-called "assault weapons ban" is bullshit, anyway.

These are semi-automatic rifles...which are LEGAL...not fully automatic weapons, which have been subject to very strict Federal regulation since 1934. The primary criterion for placement of a gun on the list of "banned weapons" seems to be its appearance, which is utterly absurd. (For instance, weapons which have a pistol grip are banned.) There is no logic here, merely catering to the paranoia of a certain sector of the public.

[RamboLiberal]

27. Spider I was just about to make the same argument

The assault weapon ban IMHO is just a feel-good law that has made almost no difference in criminal's obtaining rifles and has just made it confusing for people buying rifles.

I also think the movies and the military culture of this country have more to do with civilians wanting to own militaristic looking weapons. Plus the factor of the importing of so many cheap AK-47s in to this country.

[NNN0LHI]

29. Are you suggesting that a weapon with pistol grip is not...

...easier to be concealed than one with a stock?

Don

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. This is in addition to the shoulder stock.

"Pistol grip" here refers to the type of grip seen on, say, the M-16 or AK-47, as opposed to the "forearm grip", integral to the stock, of most rifles.

[NickB79]

34. Pistol-gripped weapons usually do have stocks

AR-15's and AK-47 clones, for example, have a pistol grip and a stock; the two are not mutually exclusive. Removing the stock to make it shorter and more concealable is illegal not because of the AWB, but had already been covered by the 1934 bill. It specified that a rifle or shotgun must be at least 26" in total length to be legal. Removing the buttstock on many rifles or shotguns puts them awefully close to that limit, especially if it has a short 16-18" barrel.

[LastDemInIdaho]

25. Touht shit

Lay off gun owners or lose every election outside of dummyville.

[Forkboy]

31. You dont like DU do you?

I'm thinking about becoming a Republican., 9/20/03
Reviewer: LastDemInIdaho
I have been visiting the website DemocraticUnderground for a few months now. At first it wasn't so bad. I thought I could have some reasonable discussions with the leftist loonies (I'm a Democrat, not a leftist) who post there. Boy was I wrong! DU is a cesspool of crazy leftwing idealouges and unwashed unrepentant ex-hippy drug casualties. My poodle 'Arik' is smarter than the people who post at DU. They have nothing in common with the average American. They hate Bush. They hate our godly war against Muslim terror in Iraq. They hate guns. And worst of all, they hate the chosen people and the blessed land of Eratz Yisrael. The blody murderer Arafat and his doglike Hamas/PA baby-killing pizzeria bombers would just loooove the I/P forum at DU. There you can find terrorist loving posters such as Resistance, tinnypriv, newyorican, bemildred, Darranar, The Magistrate, Forkboy, ducttapefatwa and others spewing pro-palestinian propaganda 24/7. It is disgusting. It is enough to make one think of becoming a republican. Better yet, I think I'll just go on posting at DU. It'll drive them nuts! And they might learn something!

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/reviews?q=&url=democraticunderground.com

[Terwilliger]

38. TheMagistrate? ahahahahahahaha

sheesh!

[Guaranteed]

32. As a so-called "liberal," I'm not sure I even understand our position on..

...this issue.
I support the most "liberal" version of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's creators put the 2nd Amendment in there to make sure that the people were always in control of their government. I'm with them. I'm pro-NRA, and seeing fascists like Bush (and Ashcroft) in office, just reinforces my opinion.
I understand the counter-arguments. Of course a rifle would be little resistance against an F-16 or M-1 Abrams. And, no, people shouldn't be able to own hand grenades or bazookas, but we have to keep the government honest.
There's a reason that it's the 2nd Amendment. It's truly our 2nd most important political right (political rights as opposed to human rights).

[LastDemInIdaho]

39. No, the states don't have the right to go against the constitution

The 2nd amendment is nation wide - not a state issue. Let's keep it that way.

[goforit]

46. OMG!!...Stupid men(P.Kennedy) do stupid things!

Bringing up the GUN issue is just going to empower the NRA!

Here it is Oct. of 2003 and a DEM brings up the GUN issue.
Unbelievable!!!!

You notice that it took a non-running Dem to make the announcement
and then hand it over on a silver platter to the quiet little
mouse(Gepthardt), whom would sell his own to get ahead!!!

This is the same thing that has been happenning to the
Gun issue with the Brady organiztion.
The NRA has stomped on them, kicked them and has practically
destroyed their ability to fight in court.


The best thing to do is wait for the right time and right Place!!!!
But now will just gear up the NRA to place their plan in action!!!

You have to have a strategy not blabbing mouth of words!!!
Kennedy's only ammunition is GEPTHARDT????
This is pretty weak at best!!!!

And I personnally AM against concealed weapons in public places!

[schultzee]

47. His gun views will get him Democratiic votes in the South if the

people know he isn't against gun ownership. I know neanderthrals who voted for bu$h on this one issue!

[DoNotRefill]

48. Gee....

"both of whom were assassinated by guns."

I wonder what they did to piss off the guns? My guns are lazy, I guess...they never move around on their own, much less go out and shoot people.

Dean's record on guns is actually pretty restrictive. If people in a State decide they want to ban all guns in that State, or if they want to have all guns in that State registered, or if the people want a 3 month waiting period to purchase a handgun in that State, he doesn't have a problem with that. On the other hand, if people in a State don't want any additional restrictions, he doesn't have a problem with that, either.

What's wrong with letting the gun laws reflect the will of the people?