Democrats and Guns? Well, yeah. |
22nd March 2007
One of the interesting things about western democrats is that we take the best parts of the democratic party platform and throw out the rest. Bill Schneider over at NewWest has written an interesting piece on Democrats and gun control. While I am not sure that I agree with all of his points, it is worth discussing. The article discusses the reauthorization of the assault rifle ban and the authors opinion on how gun control issue can effect the next election:
Here’s why this is so important to an outdoor guy who likes wild, public land, likes hunting, and likes guns, but doesn’t worship them. After barely surviving six years of an anti-environmental Congress supported by an anti-environmental president, I don’t want to give up a chance to keep a pro-environmental Congress in power and elect a pro-environmental president. For outdoor folks, there’s too much at stake. For the last six years, we’ve been fighting back repeated attacks on wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation–selling off federal lands, overzealous fee charging to reduce access to public lands to common folks, runaway escalation of fossil fuel drilling, no support for protecting roadless lands, and more.
Schneider’s view is that the democrats should stay away from the topic of gun control altogether, it’s a political had grenade. Considering the number of gun owners out there, I would say that he is on to something. This is an important point to consider. There are elements in the democratic party that strongly support gun control, but they are few and far between on the western front. Schneider points out that this can effect all democrats though:
Like any group, democrats can’t control all their members, so it isn’t fair to paint the entire party as anti-gun because of one maverick representative–no more than it’s fair to equate all gun owners with the wacko that shoots up a shopping mall. But it’s much easier for the gun lobby and the GOP to do this with H.R. 1022 in the congressional grinder
This cuts against the grain with me, seeing as how I have been spouting off against party-line-locksteppers recently and truly feel that elected officials should legislate with their conscience. This is especially true when their conscience runs against the party. You see, I fully expect Jon Tester and Max Baucus to vote against gun control since that is where they told voters their conscience would direct them, no matter what the party line is. If the distinguished lady from New York wants to make a stance on gun control, that is between her and her voters.
My personal opinion on this? I think that the jury is still out on whether the assault rifle ban is really gun control. With that said, I am with Howard Dean on this one: gun control is a state or local issue. “Guns and New York” or “Guns and Detroit” are a completely different conversations than “Guns and Montana”. Those conversations need to be had, they just don’t make a lot of sense at the federal level.
Only insofar as the context of the average gun related conversation tends to be different; in New York, a fun conversation is usually about one used in a crime while in Montana it generally refers to a favorite hunting weapon. Either way, we still have to do something about weapons used primarily for killing humans, which the “Guns and Montana” conversation is rarely about. I think on the issue of weapons used to murder people, Guns need to be a national issue, because protecting our citizens from being shot is something that should be important to everyone. When left as a state issue, we get thinks like Koopman’s gun-in-every-hand kind of approach, at least in Montana.
Colby, I couldn’t disagree with you more. First, the AWB that ended in 2004 is proof positive that gun control simply doesn’t work. It did not lessen the number of gun related crimes. In fact, the point has been made that where there is a reasonable expectation of a citizen owning a gun, the crime rate is significantly less than where gun control has removed those guns.
More importantly, if you want to protect the citizens of the US from being shot, work on the crime prevention, and punishment of those that do stupid things like that. Taking the guns away from every citizen is punishing the masses for the crimes of the few - and the sad fact is, the few we are talking about would ignore the gun control laws anyway.
To the rest of the post, I would have to say that any gun control bill (like HR1022) that target’s specific guns is playing on the ignorance of the people who don’t own guns (and is laughable to those that do). I own 3 semi-automatic rifles. One of those would be considered a “black rifle” (my SKS), one is questionably slated for this HR1022 (the Ruger 10/22) and one is considered a “hunting rifle” (my remington 742 30-06). Let me tell you catagorically, the most dangerous one of the three in terms of capability, range and knockdown power is the Remington 742 - by a VAST margin.
In short, HR1022 is as ineffectual as the previous AWB and shouldn’t even be considered by thinking individuals. I can almost buy into the argument that gun control is a city/state argument (Wulfgar and I have had this discussion more than once…) but that runs me up against the 2nd Amendment and I do have issues on that score.
Moorcat
Couple of notes Moorcat,
Exactly, treat the disease, not the symptom. Early intervention in at risk youth is a simple way to decimate the crime rate. It is much cheaper and effective than incarceration. Of course, you would have to explain that to the Jores and Koopmans that would rather decimate the education budget.
Duly noted and appreciated. The second ammendment, in my mind, couldn’t be more clear.
I find this funny since it is arguably the most debated amendment, in terms of its scope, of them all.
Let me add that my logic towards gun control is the same as my logic about global warming; many of the steps we can take (and that I advocate) aren’t going to completely rid the problem, they might not even help that much, however, in matters such as these the stakes are too high and the problems too little. So what if you spend a little extra money on lightbulbs in order that you MIGHT save the world? Well, who cares if you have to give up an assault weapon (or any other kind of weapon) in order that you MIGHT save lives? Notice, I am not saying you will do either for sure, but why play with the possibility?
In the interest of qualifying myself, while I currently own no guns, my father is an avid collector and enjoyer himself, and I grew up in an environment where huting and recreational shooting were quite commonplace, and have operated every kind of firearm myself; at length. This is not an issue of me being a person who doesn’t own guns, I am not approaching the issue from an ignorant standpoint.
For myself, the 2nd amendment couldn’t be less clear. If it makes any assertion at all, it isn’t that 21st century citizens are guaranteed the right to own any kind of gun they choose.
Colby, not questioning your motivations at all. I am in the same boat as you, in that I have a few guns but it was really my father that was into them.
It is indeed, that is why I put the ‘in my mind’ right there. I’ll even give you my reasoning, though I am sure you heard them all before:
1. The second amendment says
2. Noah Webster interpreted that as:
3. Thomas Jefferson said:
These are people who knew exactly what the constitution intended. If that is not the case today, then let us repeal the 2nd amendment, because the words the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed could not be any more clear to me.
That founders were also skilled writers, and that statement has a dependent clause attached to it. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Without the necessity of a well regulated militia, the second part of that statement is a moot point. This country, with its level of military spending, is certainly not in need a militia by any definition.
I think that you are missing the point of what I am getting at:
That is the very point of the need for an armed citizenry.
Aye, and there’s the rub. Without touching at all on the arguments regarding “well-regulated” or what constitutes a “militia”, the real demon is in that last clause itself.
Gun control efforts, to date, have not sought to do what the NRA wailers claim. No one, (at least no one in power and sane) has advocated a prohibition on firearms. There are no such things as “gun-grabbers”, except for crooks who grab your guns before you get a chance to shoot straight. No, gun-control efforts don’t focus on the right to keep arms.
They focus on the right to bear arms, and what constitutes an “arm(ament)”. And well they should. Walking down the streets of New York with an AK is a pretty clear sign of mal-intent. Packing a Glock on your hip while boarding a flight is something that most people agree is a bad idea. All but the most rabid NRA whackjobs would agree that the “right” to bear has it’s limits, just as screaming “FIRE” in a theater is not free speech. Fine, so we’ve agreed that there is no absolute right to bear arms. And any infringement of that does not pose a Constitutional challenge. I would ask, why not? Just because most of us agree that that right isn’t absolute doesn’t mean that it isn’t absolutely stated in the Constitution. It is. It’s right there. Shane even quoted. It’s stated absolutely, and yet we (almost) universally accept that the government has a right to protect us from each other by denying us an explicit right from the Second Amendment.
The more insidious level of gun control questions what is an armament allowable to the people. There is no explication of that in the Constitution. The absolutist stand of the NRA is that anything should be allowable, and yet most of also agree that citizens with bazookas and hand-grenades are a danger to the children. *WE MUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!1!* So, if the government has the right to stop us from commuting in a M1 Abrams tank, why shouldn’t they also have the responsibility to stop us from hunting with a Barrett .50 caliber, or an AK-47, or just plain can-plinking with a Tec-9? Simply asked, shouldn’t we have the right to bear and use whatever “arm” we choose? Certainly.
Except, that poses a problem for law-enforcement. No cop in this country wants to face a Barrett when serving a summons. Being greeted by an AK when responding to a domestic dispute is likely pretty disconcerting. The police are the arm of the government, they enforce the law. So, if the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct in order to ensure the people’s control, then law enforcement has no right to be better armed than the citizenry. That’s what we call “self-defeating”. And that’s the really awful part about gun-control.
We, as Americans, like to think that we support our government and our Cops and our troops. But we want the ability to blast those bastards if they try and pick on what we feel are our rights. Yeah, that’s some kinda support we got there. And to be honest, I favor that kind of support. Law enforcement and the military are the very tools of violence that the Second Amendment protects us against. Handing them an advantage is precisely the thing we shouldn’t do, but favor doing. Quite the paradox, yes?
Before someone comes waltzing in claiming that I have to have a solution to their selective absolutism, let me offer one. Keep the rights that we have. No assault weapons ban. No self-defeating ‘bans’ of any kind. Return the control of the regional (state) militias to the state Governors. Completely. If the Freemen want to go whack-job, fine. Send in the Montana Guard, our militia, to defend the rights of the people of the state. If the people of New York City want to ban guns, let them. I don’t care. They will reap what they sow. Finally, and most fervently, let’s have it out in courts of law. This hypocritical and irrational absolutism has got to stop. We need legal precedent not clouded by re-election chances for waffling politicians. Castrate the NRA. Until such terms as “bear” and “arms” are defined legally, we will continue this absolutely bullshit ridden cycle we are on. Ultimately, this will force our politicians to consider what their constituents want, as opposed to what will gain them favor with lobbies.
Wulfgar,
I could not agree with you more… great post. I share your view as a fellow firearm owning Montanan.
One thing though… You said:
But.. isn’t this that pesky State’s Rights thing we argued about a few days ago? If you let a New Jersian have any guns he wants and he waltzes over to New York with them.. isn’t that a bit of a problem (since we don’t live in a “papers please” state border crossing kind of country)? Surely, a firearm from a person from another state can adversely effect a person in another state.
Just sayin’… you’re kinda weaving your State’s Rights line where you see fit to improve your argument…
Not really. What I want is to get these issues in the courts; something the money grubbers of the NRA seek to avoid. We need precedent. We can’t change law or uphold law, until we have a baseline of what the law is.
That’s valid….
I’m not a constitutional scholar (which may become apparent), but doesn’t the presence of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution preclude it from being a state’s rights issue?
Not necessarily. “Bear” and “Arms” remain ambiguous. This is custom for states to adjudicate.
But wouldn’t the ambiguity be for a Federal Court to resolve? Perhaps there is a lawyer around who could clarify this; I’m just trying to think of an instance when two states interpret the Federal Constitution differently without a Federal Court siding with one or the other. A little surfing may be in order.
If it goes to federal court, that’s fine with me. There’s still some kind of precedent to follow. I seriously (almost desperately) desire that the SCOTUS have to make a ruling concerning the terms “militia”, “well regulated” “bear” and “arms”. Let’s not hide from this.
If we assume an ultimate federal jurisdiction, then I can’t share your enthusiasm. My apprehension springs from my jaded view of judges as elitist political animals.
For Colby,
I have to say that freedoms and objects are very different things; as for myself, I don’t think that the 2nd amendment is at all like the rest of them; it makes a conditional guarantee whereas the others make universal ones. It grants you an object while the other grants you abilities. There are plenty of items that we are not allowed to have, for various reasons of safety, and personally I don’t want to live in a society everyone is packing a gun; only about 10% of the population is git to do so.
I heartily disagree. It does not grant you an object, it specifies a right that the government cannot infringe upon, an important distinction in my view. Additionally, this freedom, in my reading of it, is not conditional, but there is a rub there as Wulfgar eloquently points out.
Okay, I put that out there because it is the most common context of the debate, from the pro-gun (for lack of a better term) side. I don’t ever hear gun owners argue for the right to oppose a tyrannical government, I hear them argue for the right to “keep their guns” (objects). In addition, it TENDS to be a far more greedy debate; “From MY cold dead hands” versus the other rights, “everyone deserves the right to believe what they want to believe”. I think these traits make it a far uglier argument, and definitely a less noble one, to some of us.
I agree with TMM here 100% (gasps and shakes his head slightly). I would add that the second amendment makes it perfectly clear that we are to watch for tyranny in government. You have to understand the contexts. Federalists didn’t even think that the Bill of Rights was necessary because they did not believe that the Federal government could ever raise an army to compete with the militias. The anti-federalist feared that just the opposite was true. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee that the people could keep the power to defend themselves from this tyranny should the federal government come under tyrannical control.
I think that we tend to get fat and lazy in this country. Hell, all these years and we are still free. That is ONLY because of the diligence of those that came before us.
That can hardly be true of any words from the Constitution. If only that were true, how simpler life would be.
I want you all to know that this is a black day for me….I find myself agreeing with part of Wulfgars post. I think I need an adult beverage.
That’s how we get you Jerry. We start with the small stuff…
In a hurry, but I can’t pass up this topic. My thoughts:
1. Gun control doesn’t work.
2. Most gun control laws are designed as stepping stones for greater control.
3. The control sought is control over the law abiding citizens.
4. The founders, as pointed out by Jefferson (see, for example, the Declaration of Independence), feared government power above all. That is why they insisted on the 2nd Am. It would never even occur to them that a government could rightfully take away the individual right to protect oneself, one’s family, or one’s property. Those rights are inate, God given, natural, or however you wish to phrase them.
5. Democrats are indeed foolish to tackle gun control, at least in the west. Very few issues cause such a gut reaction in voters. Very few voting blocks are as unified on a single issue as are gun right advocates. The NRA is powerful because of the people it represents. They gladly switch parties to protect gun rights.
6. I am one of those zealous gun rights folks.
Somebody up above made the comment that the AWG was essencially designed to protect law enforcement. (my paraphrasing).
To come extent, I actually can see the point. As an expolice officer that has faced the business end of a KG-99 (a nasty machine pistol) as well as a Glock with an aftermarket extended mag, I can honestly say that, as a police officer, i would never want to go through that experience again.
In Analysis, though, it turns out that both of the firearms used in that event were gained illegally (sold on the street to felons) - this was LONG before the AWG was a dream in Guliani’s mind - and as such, this event would not have been prevented by the very law meant to prevent it.
As has been pointed out before, so called “black guns” (mine is soon to be “dark earth colored” but you get the idea), are rarely used in actual crimes. Far more often, you see simple guns found in almost every gun owner’s closet or you see guns that were obtained illegally - something that no gun control law will ever stop.
I may not be a “gun zealot” but gun control is certainly a subject I think is important, and I will support any candidate that advocates it unless they can give me a DAMN good reason that overrides it. Unlike the partisan hacks that have responded, I do not equate gun control with a party (look at Guliani), but I think the original idea - that Democrats should probably seperate themselves from the issue - is probably a good idea.
Moorcat
sorry, that was suppose to be “I will NOT support any candidate that advocates it” (though if they advocate Wulfgar’s form of gun control, they have my vote for sure…)
When is gun control a good thing? When its used to sabotage Dem. sponsered legislation.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0307/GOP_Forces_House_Democrats_To_Pull_DC_Voting_Bill.html
Now if we could only attach this to Koyoto.
That’s splendid Swede. Use gun control to make sure that a group of Americans don’t have a vote in congress. Yep, don’t give them a voice because a majority of them are democrats. Good thinking. No wonder the Republican party is doing so very well these days.
Your fluff piece about Dems. and guns has many flaws. If politicans can’t pass laws giving the unfortunate power to protect themselves under their own noses in DC, why do you think they’ll protect our rights out here in the boonies. Our nation’s capital is crime ridden. What a more perfect way for the Dems to prove gun control doesn’t work. But the dirty little lie is they know by putting guns in the hands of law abideing citizens, they’ll reduce crime.
Well hell, let’s take away New York Cities right to representation too.
[…] Login « Democrats and Guns? Well, yeah. […]