Gun Control Remains a Loaded Issue for Democratic Candidates

The Los Angeles Times ^ | February 6, 2004 | John R. Lott Jr. and Grover Norquist

[neverdem]

COMMENTARY

The rhetoric may be toned down, but the aim remains the same.

By John R. Lott Jr. and Grover Norquist, John R. Lott Jr. is the author of "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery, 2003). Grover Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Everyone seems to believe that Democrats have changed their minds on gun control. Out on the campaign trail, John Kerry and John Edwards and Wesley Clark talk about their boyhood hunting trips. Before the Iowa caucuses, Kerry even took time out to shoot a pheasant. The gun control organization Americans for Gun Safety calls it "taking the gun issue to the political center." The National Rifle Assn.'s leader, Wayne LaPierre, claims that "the center of the party saw that [advocating gun control] was a dead end for the Democrats." And Newsweek spread the word: "At least among the presidential candidates," said an article in January, "Democrats are moderating their stances" on gun control.

If one reads the candidates' public statements on the 2nd Amendment, they certainly seem moderate:

Kerry: "I believe that the Constitution, our laws and our customs protect law-abiding American citizens' right to own firearms…. I believe that the right of gun ownership comes with responsibilities."

[neverdem]

The question was hardly theoretical. A couple of weeks ago, a U.S. District Court judge, a Democratic appointee, ruled in a District of Columbia case upholding the district's ban: "The 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias."

I wish. They must be referring to this addled fool because there was only this bozo that made news about guns in D.C. recently. He has a pedigree of pubbie nominations, including W.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/walton-bio.html

[George W. Bush]

Looks like a great article. But I just can't register with LATimes even for a good Lott article. Too bad.

[Puppage]

I believe that the right of gun ownership comes with responsibilities.

So does driving a car,raising a child.What words of wisdom. Truly amazing insight.

[coloradan]

Do animal rights come with animal responsibilities?

Do abortion rights come with abortion responsibilities?

[whereasandsoforth]

Kerry is an unmatured doofus. Real adults don't need something like guns to be labeled to know that responsibility goes hand-in-hand with ownership.

Kerry has a pattern of "not mature" thinking. Look and listen to his silly stance against the USA protecting ourselves. Maybe it is the Vietnam era drug-use that stopped him from maturing into an intellectual.

[jnmitch]

This article can also be found at the following site:
http://www.johnrlott.com/op-eds/DemocraticrhetoricLATimes.html

[dixierat22]

It's amazing how many of the Dems and their hencemen never heard or read the Federalists Papers, which give specific reasons for the 2nd Amendment.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Items from the LA Times and other restricted publications must not be posted in full, even in replies.

[Redbob]

Clearly belongs on the "Bang" list!

[dixierat22]

From the Federalist #26 (by Alexander Hamiliton)

``But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

Just one example of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

[neverdem]

jnmitch is owed by guess who?

[George W. Bush]

jnmitch is owed by guess who?

I dunno. Not good at guessing. You tell me.

But I'm glad for his link so I don't have to help raise LAT ad revenues by clicking through.

Thanks for that link.

[spodefly]

anonymous / anonymous

[George W. Bush]

Great little expose on the Dim candidates and their strategic silence on gun issues.

[George W. Bush]

anonymous / anonymous

I'm not in the 'in' crowd and don't know exactly what you mean.

If you're saying he's a disruptor because he's new, well, maybe. We do get disruptors. But we also do get new legit members too. I trust the mods to sort it out. And his posting of the link did not seem to be disruptive.

I like to read and post, not try to do the mods' jobs. JimRob knows who he trusts with the oversight. They're always ten steps ahead of me anyway.

[Ancesthntr]

These Dems are all lying sacks of shiite. They would ALL sign highly restrictive bans on whole classes of weapons, register guns, give broad authority to the Batf'ers to write overbroad regulations without Congressional approval, not give the gun industry any protection against frivolous lawsuits, etc. - all with the goal of eliminating gun ownership among the general populace in the foreseeable future.

The problem is that too many RINOs are exactly the same.

[onedoug]

Grover Norquist: Islamism apologist. Very possibly enemy agent, hence Traitor.

[o_zarkman44]

If I recall, the first organized state national guard was created in the early 1900's. Before that, a militia was composed of private citizens who volunteered for duty and generally provided their own privately owned firearms in service to the militia. When the services of the militia were no longer needed and the group was disbanded, the citizens returned home with their firearms. There was no need for the government to have huge expenditures on firearms because the people had the firepower necessary for the defense of the Constitution. Even during the cold war years, where fear of Soviet invasion and nuclear conflict, the military quietly depended upon individual, privately owned firepower for homeland defense, knowing citizens are loyal and formidible tools. Unfortunately, law enforcement does not recognize the same lawfully armed citizen as a partner.

When the Military required service to individuals, then it became the sole provider of firearms, recognizing uniformity of weapons made supply of munitions easier.
Unfortunately, this action reduced the significance of citizens arms use in issues of national defense. It was also in the 1900's where defensive posturing geared for world conflict, further reducing the need for offensive private firearms although I do not believe that outcome was even a consideration or a concern.

Obviously the judge does not know history, or ignores history because he has an anti gun agenda. Everyone knows a national guard unit, now also called the militia, works for the government, is paid by the government, and is loyal to the government. So does that mean that only government employees have the right to possess arms, and then only during government sanctioned actions or events?
Absolutely NOT!!!! The Preamble to the Constitution says "WE THE PEOPLE, in order to create a perfect union"; not "I the Government, or We the military, or We the Police.

Owning firearms is a matter of freedom of individual choice. Need is established by personal choices, not by government. A small group of anti gunners cannot make that choice for me. If they choose to not own firearms, that is fine. I respect that. But they demonstrate no respect for my personal choice to legally own firearms.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The uniformity of views is striking, as are the "reasonable restrictions" the major Democratic candidates support: banning so-called semiautomatic assault weapons...

---

That also happens to be the Bush admin position. They call it an individual right, subject to "reasonable restrictions."