Doctor Dean and the NRA

I'm for gun control. But I think Dean's supposedly pro-gun stance might be a worthwhile electoral sacrifice. Clinton has said the NRA cost Gore the election, I didn't see gun issues in a quick look at the official Dean site.

I understand the NRA will not take sides against a liberal if they support enough NRA issues. Does Dean qualify based on past elections?


Does it look cold for a doctor to be against gun control?



Here is Clark's limited gun info:
Guns: 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)

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm#Guns

Yeah, Right....Sure.

The NRA would Never endorse a Dem. They will attack.

And Gore won. The NRA fought like Hell in Pennsylvania and failed.

They endorsed Dean many times for reelection in Vermont. They endorsed Siegleman in Alabama and Roy Barnes in Georgia in 1998. They also endorsed Al Gore in his 1984 Senate race. They will always give the benefit of the doubt to Republicans, but they are foremost a single issue interest group. The NRA may have lost in Pennslyvania and Michigan--though Gore lost ground in the rural parts of those states compared to 1996--but NRA campaigns also helped to put * over the top in Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas and West Virginia. Al Gore lost many voters in these states only because of guns.

Which is what the poster was speaking about. I am fully aware that the NRA will "dance with the devil" for it's own needs in other races.

They won't be able to blast him like they would other pro gun control candidates. It's very likely that many people who mostly side with the Democrats would vote for Bush if they thought the Democratic candidate would take away his guns. With Dean that won't be an issue.

It also helps that Dean is correct in his stance.

Hollywood legend Charlton Heston has made his last public appearance as the president of the US gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA).
…
Heston will be succeeded by Kayne Robinson, a former chairman of Iowa's Republican Party.
…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2974993.stm

A Dean candidacy would effectively defang the NRA, and it would remove one major obstacle to our candidate carrying WV and OH. It would also bolster our chances of carrying MI, MN, PA, IA, and WI again. We need those states badly. If we can carry Gore's states, then Dean could bring NH to the table and Clark could bring AR (regardless of ticket configuration). That'd be 270EVs exactly.

Dean and Clark seem to be really close on the gun issue (and a few others). I wonder if it came-up in their telephone conversations?

endorse him or any other Dem for president. But they will not be able to paint him as a liberal who will take your guns away, so Dean will be able to get his message out to the rural voters about his stance on guns, which, IMHO is very moderate.

Dr. Dean will be here in the morning and there will be quite a good turnout for him. Idahoans are pro-gun and I hope he brings this subject up to deflect any criticism. We may be progun but we are also proeducation concerning gun handling and permits to carry.

It's NOT going to change Gov. Deans status as frontrunner. It's not going to help. Clark must attain competetiveness via worthy statements and actions. Not subterfuge.

If you and your cronies signed on to DU specifically for this, it's just not a happening thing. It diminishes Gen. Clark and his undeclared candidacy.

A guy like the general doesn't need his path paved with astroturf.


Post on something besides the candidates.

You DO know there is an evil President currently occupying the White House, don't You?

you should be preparing to help the rest of the party carry your banner when the election is over in 7 months. Clark would certainly not approve of bashing other candidates. Does a discussion of where the candidate stands on the issues amount to an attack? (I do post on other threads)

Would Gov. Dean want one of his supporters to introduce accusations to a thread that has been limited to a discussion oh the issues?

from his site:

Sensible Gun Laws

Vermont has the lowest homicide rate in the United States. During my eleven years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm.

If you say “gun control” in Vermont, Tennessee, or Colorado, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.

I believe the federal gun laws we have—like the Brady Bill—are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

and more on civil rights and justice:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights

I knew about Dean's stance on guns, and happen to agree with him. While I don't like guns, or the gun-happy culture in this country, I don't believe in banning them, as much as I'd like a world without guns. I think strict controls on guns will only make things worse in this country at this point in time. Americans love their guns.

Dean makes a helluva lot of sense on this, and many, many other issues. It is so refreshing to see a politician who weighs everything according to the circumstance instead of offering simplistic, 'cut and dry' solutions for everything. He definitely is a moderate, but in the best way possible. I prefer the word 'balanced', and not without a good deal of wisdom. Very rare, indeed.

I guess there's no gun control lobby to worry about and gun control voters have nowhere else to go.

I think they hate him more than Bush!

Are two 10 round magazines less dangerous than one 12 round magazine?? Think about it!

Does it look cold for a doctor to be against gun control?

Why don't you ask my doctor, he packs! (and so do I)

BTW, I am also a member of the NRA, I hate Wayne LaPierre and those members that are Freepers, and I am Red to boot!

I will tell the DU reader to find out what Dean says about gun control from Dean himself, not from some propagandist such as yourself:

Sensible Gun Laws

Vermont has the lowest homicide rate in the United States. During my eleven years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm.

If you say “gun control” in Vermont, Tennessee, or Colorado, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.

I believe the federal gun laws we have—like the Brady Bill—are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

Enough said.

I rather have a candidate 100% gun control than one like Dean who is not 100% pro gun.

And any president who is 100% gun control has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.

The bad guys on the other side are going to try to paint ANY DEMOCRAT who gets the nomination as one who has either announced that they want to take their guns or secretly plans to take their guns. It is the same crap that these slimey bastards have pulled for years. They have absolutely no problem with lying through their teeth.

They painted Al Gore that way and it was a far from the truth as one could get. Did any of you read the Democratic Party's 2K platform re: gun control? I did and it was absolutely reasonable regarding firearms. Nothing radical, threatening or earth-shaking. Just common sense stuff. But you would never have known that from the way the gop AND the NRA played it.

That is what we have to deal with. Quibbling over policy with these goons is useless. We have to find a way to counter their Big Lie tactics.

The only other way is for Democrats cede to thier countless lies and watch thier party get yanked further into the right-wing pit of hell. Thoughtful post.