Glorifying Guns?

NRO ^ | April 22, 2004 | John R. Lott Jr.

[neverdem]

	E-mail Author Send to a Friend <% printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Print Version

April 22, 2004, 9:13 a.m.

Glorifying Guns?
The Dems' lip service is just empty rhetoric.

By John R. Lott Jr.

John Kerry doesn't want to alienate gun owners. Just this past weekend, during the NRA's annual convention, Kerry's campaign issued a statement that the senator "is a lifelong hunter, supports the Second Amendment and will defend hunting rights." Previously, before the Iowa caucuses, Kerry even took time out for a well-publicized pheasant shoot.

Of course, Kerry wasn't alone in speaking out in favor of the Second Amendment. The most remarkable aspect of the Democratic presidential primaries this year was the universal agreement by candidates on guns. All the Democrats claimed that the Second Amendment guaranteed people the right to own guns.

Possibly, with all this agreement, it is not surprising to learn that last year Democratic pollster Mark Penn produced surveys showing that if Democrats didn't show "respect for the Second Amendment and support gun safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the Second Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on." Remember, Bill Clinton and Democratic strategists are on the record as saying that too strong a stand for gun control probably cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.

Yet the whole notion of marketing Kerry as sympathetic to gun owners has always been a tough sell. For someone like Howard Dean, the question was at least debatable. For Kerry, however, gun-control organizations have rated him as having a perfect record on gun control over his entire political career. Even this spring, when legislation to rein in abusive lawsuits against gun makers was voted on by the Senate, Kerry consistently supported gun-control efforts.

In January, the policy directors for the Democratic presidential campaigns pitched their candidates at an AEI-sponsored breakfast in Washington. Given their candidates' stated support for the right of individuals to own guns, they were asked where their candidates would draw the line on reasonable restrictions. Where do they stand on, say, the bans on handgun ownership in Chicago and the District of Columbia?

Only Joe Lieberman's representative answered the question. The now-former Democratic candidate "would oppose an outright ban on handguns, and he is not afraid to say so." And the others? Dean's senior advisor, Maria Echaveste, refused to be pinned down, because that would be giving in to "wedge-issue" politics "as opposed to really talking about values that are fundamental to all candidates and to the American people." Representatives for Kerry, Edwards, and Clark would not respond.

Supporting "reasonable restrictions" sounds moderate, but is an ownership ban "reasonable"? And, if so, what exactly does guaranteeing an individual right really mean?

Polling may have convinced Senator Kerry to change his rhetoric, but when he can't even "oppose an outright ban on handguns," the rhetoric is pretty empty.

— John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime.

 

	http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200404220913.asp

[neverdem]

BANG

[Puppage]

they want tough laws that close loopholes

WHAT loopholes? And, aren't the 10 thousand plus gun laws already on the books enough? What say we enforce them before we introduce any more, hmm?

[antiRepublicrat]

Let's parse out that statement:

"is a lifelong hunter," Meaningless.

"supports the Second Amendment" In his interpretation that guns are only for the government.

"and will defend hunting rights." With what? That doesn't necessarily mean guns, maybe he'll allow you a bow or maybe just a 2" Swiss Army Knife with which to hunt.

With that statement he was able to completely avoid the issue of whether the people should be able to own guns.

[Spok]

"Kerry's campaign issued a statement that the senator "is a lifelong hunter, supports the Second Amendment and will defend hunting rights."

If Kerry had a clue, he'd know the quickest way to piss off gun owners is to tell them the Second Amendment is about hunting. This is a serious gaff!

[jdege]

I support reasonable restrictions.

I don't believe that the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be providing assault weapons for free to anyone but veterans of the US military and their family members - everyone else should be required to pay a moderate fee.

[R. Scott]

What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting rights?

[DrNo]

I don't believe that the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be providing assault weapons for free to anyone but veterans of the US military and their family members - everyone else should be required to pay a moderate fee.

I paid $400 for my M1.

[LouD]

WTF are "hunting rights?" I don't know what Hanoi John's Constitution says, but the 2nd Amendment of my Consitution ain't about hunting.

[jscd3]

don't believe that the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be providing assault weapons for free to anyone but veterans of the US military and their family members - everyone else should be required to pay a moderate fee.

Th CPM does not provide free firearms - you pay for them.

The M1 is not an "assault weapon", not even by the totally ad-hoc description used in the 94 "assault weapon" ban. It is a 30 caliber, gas operated, clip fed, semi-auto rifle - it doesn't even have a detachable magazine.

[coloradan]

Possibly, with all this agreement, it is not surprising to learn that last year Democratic pollster Mark Penn produced surveys showing that if Democrats didn't show "respect for the Second Amendment and support gun safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the Second Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on."

Gentlemen! Please start your 'rat parsing machines! Those who don't support "gun safety" are anti-gun! If you don't support tough laws that close loopholes, you don't support the Second Amendment!

[pepperhead]

John Kerry doesn't want to alienate gun owners. Just this past weekend, during the NRA's annual convention, Kerry's campaign issued a statement that the senator "is a lifelong hunter, supports the Second Amendment and will defend hunting rights." Previously, before the Iowa caucuses, Kerry even took time out for a well-publicized pheasant shoot.

Nothing says I am a liar like claiming your a life long hunter the only thing you can point to is a well-publicized pheasant shoot you went to in Iowa.

Remember, Bill Clinton and Democratic strategists are on the record as saying that too strong a stand for gun control probably cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.

And it cost the Democrats the Senate and House. It hurt them in most southern state offices as well. We can't trust democrats as long as Shummer, Kennedey, Boxer and the rest of the gun grabbers are in charge.

[neverdem]

This is a serious gaff!

Au contraire! It's quite routine for Kerry.

[neverdem]

What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting rights?

Huh? Say what?

[jdege]

The CMP should be distributing any and all surplus small-arms, to any veterans who want them, without charge. Any excess should be available for sale to non-veterans at a moderate cost.

And these should include not just M1903s and M1s, but M14s, M3s, M16s, M60s, M249s, and whatever else.

Understand - I understand how the CMP works now. I just don't agree with the way it works now.

The US military should never destroy an individually-operated weapon as surplus. The CMP should be distributing them to any veterans who are willing to take them. Including full-auto weapons. And to non-veterans, if the demand among veterans has been met.

But the question was what "reasonable restrictions" we might consider reasonable. I consider it reasonable for the CMP to impose a charge when distributing small-arms to non-veterans.

[Drammach]

I consider it reasonable for the CMP to impose a charge when distributing small-arms to non-veterans.

I would amend that:
Non-veterans with an active restraining order against a violent person and a case number identifying themselves as a victim of said violence:
(a) would be provided small arms at no cost.
(b) would be provide ammunition for same at no cost.
(c) would be provided training in the efficient use of said small arms.

Note that I do not specify gender, as either sex can be victim to violence and find themselves in need of a means of self-defence..

[45Auto]

I suppose in a broad sense it could be about hunting Enemies of Freedom, with no bag limit and no tag required.

[45Auto]

The original Sturmgewehr SG44 chmbered in 8 mm x 33.

[Lurker]

Ahhh, the original 'assault rifle'.

L