Good God! Dean is anti-gun control!

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm


How can people vote for a man who supports policies that kill tens of thousands every year! Dean is a stooge of the NRA! He might as well have supported the war in Iraq, cause he's personally responsible for many more deaths than resulted from the war!!!

(Just thought the Deanies and greens needed a taste of their own medecine. No, I do not think this poorly of Dean, just some of his more rabid supporters. DU use to be a fun place to go to and bash Bush and organize. Now all I see is Stalinistic ideological witchhunts and factionalism. Its a bummer .):(

He spoke about his position in the debate and got caught getting his crime statistics wrong.

Thats simple enough.

to drive from vermont to New York city or Boston

Dean is wrong on guns. It's wrong to appeal to retards who believe that the g-men are going to take away there guns, when all they might want to is something aweful like registering handguns or , god forbid, make people get liscenses to own one.

Beach parking lot stickers are literally more well regulated than machines that are designed to kill people, and do kill people(although that's fine because they can't here the driveby's in montpelier.

politicians need to have the balls to say to people that DC has all the good guns, and Bobby Ray and his buddies aren't gonna overthrow it when they get uppity.

On June 23rd, I thought the trip was going quickly on the way back to New Jersey because we got out of Vermont and into NY State pretty quickly, but then we were in New York for what felt like forever before we got to the city. And Boston is at least 3 hours from Vermont...so it is not like it is right around the corner for people to go buy guns, especially the people most likely to use them for things like gang violence, many of whom live in the inner cities and do not have cars. Many people of all income levels do not drive who live in NYC...and there have got to be easier ways to get guns than to go all the way to Vermont.

Now, in DC, this is a bigger issue, because Virginia has pretty lax gun rules and is very easily accessible by Metro. That is I believe part of why violent crime has gone up in DC in the last 20 years despite all the new gun laws. So I don't think Dean was negligent in not passing more gun laws in Vermont, which has the lowest homicide rate in the country, for fear of people getting guns there to use in NYC. But I think that the DC-Virginia case casts doubt on Dean's position that it is a state issue. Then again, if DC had the rights that states have, there are plenty of ways that they could use leverage against Virginia to get them to take the District into account in passing their gun laws, such as putting tolls on the bridges between DC and Arlington or charging a wage tax on Virginians who work in the District and get a completely free ride right now.

It's attitudes like yours that helps the GOP win elections. Do you have any idea how many rural hunters who WOULD vote Democratic cast their vote for the Republicans JUST because some anti-gun Democrats talks like you do? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Read my signature. Hunters look at people like you in the same way you look at people who want to further regulate abortion. Criminals don't respect law, gun control or otherwise. They never have and they never will. All more gun control does is use up time, money and resources that could be spent to track down those who use guns to commit crimes. Dean supports what's on the books and thinks anything additional should be decided at a state level BY those living in that state. Let people in that state decide what works for them. Choice and control TO THE PEOPLE...what a novel idea.

Run a candidate who is anti-gun and I will NOT vote for them.

DU already has more than enough rabid supporters of every major candidate.

Gore lost TN on this issue.

Many rural states don't need gun control. Do you want a Democrat to have a chance in these states or not?

I guess not.

I just wanted to show what all these anti-Clark posts are starting to look like. Dean's pro-gun stance is not a make or break issue for me. I will consider his stand on all the issues when deciding whether he's best for the country, as well as his ability (or inability) to beat Bush.

But since were on the subject, why should Dean get a pass on gun policy while Kerry and Clark get ripped over Iraq. Do I smell a double standard?

so calling it a double standard is just infantile flame-bait

so many posts here at DU concerning Clark and Kerry's stand on the war, but none on Dean's opinions regarding gun-control? And are you saying that anyone who voted for the war is automatically a war criminal?

IRAQ IS AN UNHOLY DEATHTRAP QUAGMIRE MONEYHOLE.

Also, it's a losing strategy to side with Bush on his epic quagmire, wouldn't you say?

He said it's a regional issue. Talking to different populations about this issue gives it differents contexts. It seems reasonable to talk to people in NY about gun control because there's a good chance that they at least know someone who has been a victim of a crime where gun violence was threatened. On the other hand, in Vermont, you are talking to hunters who resent the possibility of the loss of their guns.
I can understand this very well. I live in Missouri where the Republicans\rural parts of the state just imposed a conceal\carry law on the rest of us via the legislature. It was voted down by a popular vote in 1999, but when pukes took over the leg in 2002, they passed this then overrode the governor's veto. All of the urban areas voted against it. The places that went for it were less populated. The Democrats who represented those parts felt obligated to represent their constituencies while the Republicans voted against their urban constiuents.
The point is that those of us who live in urban or semi urban parts of the state don't appreciate having this particular gun law shoved down our throats. I can totally see where he is coming from.

including NH, WV and all the other ones Dean people throw out. The gun nuts are staying with Bush, and if they aren't there not gonna vote for Howie. Gore didn't lose Tennessee on guns alone, the votes he lost for the minimal gun-law regulation he supported, were interwoven with the ones he lost for being Al Gore against George Bush.

Dean would lose more urban support than gained rural support

Clinton easily won it 2 teams and not only do they have 2 senators that are democrats, 2 out 3 representatives that are democrat and even a democratic governor. Add to that a state that has a large Union population that has been devestated by lost jobs and free trade - this state is without a doubt a Democratic state

This isn't a Bush state.

However West Virginia is an inexpensive state to run campaign ads against Gore and appeal to the gunowners. Robert Byrd won his senate seat with 65% of the vote and Gore still loss. That was because of an intense campaign by the NRA in the state of West Virginia which turned off many of the 'should have voted democratic" folks in that state.

Just think if we could have neutralized the NRA in 2000 - Gore would have been in the White House. With 5 electorial votes, it wouldn't have matter who won Florida!

sorry it's quicker that way. You don't need to explain national elections to me. I'm researching a term paper as we speak for my third year in polisci and public policy analysis.

The "he's gonna take my gun away" voters might vote for a democrat at local levels, or they might vote for certain dems nationally. But they are not going to favor Dean over Bush. Dean is a Starbucks democrat's democrat. independants who are pro-NRA in southern and border states don't vote with Starbucks democrats, they vote with Walmart democrats

Also, there's no way to "neutralize" the NRA, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP. If Democrats became "NRA-lite", the NRA would simply keep pushing the issue to the right until there were absolutely zero gun laws. Even that wouldn't be enough, since the NRA's objective isn't simply about gun rights, but about advancing the GOP agenda. In other words, even if the Democrats were to hold the same exact position on gun control as the NRA, the NRA would simply expand their agenda to include other right wing/libertarian/anti-government positions.

The idea all voters who support gun rights support
the NRA is wrong. I agree with you that the NRA is a
tool of the GOP and would never give them a single cent
because of this.

The people who will vote for Dean over Bush in the
general election may make the difference in this
election and the gun issue may swing some border
states to the Dean camp.

gun control isn't a state problem, it's a federal one.

And it's more likely that Democrats would lose votes by taking a pro-gun (or neutral) position. For minorities and suburban swing voters especially, it's a major issue. Gore did well with swing voters and others by standing up the the NRA.

I don't believe in outlawing guns. I believe that rights haved responsibilities and people must bear the full burden of their rights, i.e. your rights end where mine begin. I feel the current system needs to be scrapped and replaced with a two tiered approach: a central, federal system for registration and basic gun laws; then let each state decide if they want more gun laws. We should have a system that doesn't attempt to outlaw gun ownership with excessive fees and unfair, complicated laws -- but facilitate responsible gun ownership.

Gun control is a state issue within limits set
by the federal courts and the 2nd amendment.

Are you the type of Dem that would chose Bush over
Dean because of gun control? Give me a break.

I don't think that such a person exists.

I'm sure a few koolaid drinkers will not vote but
enough to make a difference, Nope.

I am against a "central, federal system for registration"
the last people who should have a big list like this is
Ashcroft.

As for the rest of what you describe, I agree and it is
just about the exact system that now exists. A two
tiered approach WMD's, missles and machine guns regulated
at the federal level the rest left to the states within
the limits of the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd Amendment was enacted in a time when the state and the individual were on equal footing with regards to "arms". That is not true now. If we are to follow the 2nd amendment literally, regular citizens have the right to own ANY military weapon for the purpose of organizing a militia. The 2nd amendment is outmoded and does not apply to the present day. It should be scrapped, but it won't be anytime soon.

Gun control isn't only a state concern because the guns from one state are affecting people in another on a massive scale. NYC could pass all the gun control legislation possible and it wouldn't stop the gun flow from the rural states. Most of the guns on NYC streets come from South. Without a federal system in place to deal with the flow of guns between states, local laws mean nothing.

Now tell us how much money Dean will raise this quarter.

They are SO pissed at Bush. They might end up having to actually have new taxes because of the No Child Left Behind debacle. Their property taxes have gone up over $100 mil statewide. They don't really care about the income taxes, because they don't have a state income tax. It's property taxes that fuel everything in NH and now they've gone so high that some people will end up losing their homes from an inablity to pay. A lot of NH's schools are going to fail and lose federal funding, too. NH is VERY pro-gun, too. Dean has NH sewn up. If an anti-gun Democrat is the nominee, NH will vote for Bush just because of guns, despite the fact that they really hate him.

Commentary: Celinda Lake
Charleston Gazette (6/8/03)
Attention Democrats: It Wasn't Gun Stance that Lost Votes.

Recent remarks by political analysts, congressional aides and even some Democratic presidential candidates have helped perpetuate the myth that support for gun safety is political poison. Put simply, this is not true.

Much of the debate on the political salience of gun safety is based on the 2000 elections. Whether Democrats or Republicans advanced their cause based on their position on guns is a disputed question. On the one hand the NRA wants politicians to believe it prevented the Democrats from taking back the House of Representatives, and that it cost Al Gore the Electoral College. On the other hand, reasonable people would point out victories in swing states that were due largely to support for gun violence prevention efforts.

As everyone remembers, the battleground states of 2000 were the industrial powerhouses of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The National Rifle Association committed the majority of its resources to these states, as did gun safety advocates. Al Gore won all three - and by bigger margins than expected. Why? Because Gore's support for gun laws like criminal background checks on all gun sales won huge favor in suburban areas. For example, Gore won the traditionally Republican Philadelphia suburbs by 55,000 votes.

These issues are particularly strong with the suburban women voters who voted Democratic in 2000 but Republican in 2002.

The NRA has chosen to ignore its losses in these Midwestern states with high rates of gun ownership. Instead, they tout their successes in West Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas. But West Virginia went for Bush because miners were afraid - unfoundedly so - that Gore's environmental policies might lead to job losses. And Republicans were effective at appealing to religious conservatives in Arkansas and Tennessee who had come to see Gore as too liberal. Did Al Gore's stand on gun safety play a role in this? Perhaps.

But for the NRA to argue that this single issue swung these states into the Bush column is revisionist history at its worst.

Still not convinced? Then how about comparing Democratic congressional wins in 2000 and 2002? In 2000, when Democratic candidates stressed gun-safety policies to attract suburban votes, they picked up an astonishing five seats in the Senate and two in the House. In 2002, when Democrats actively shed their gun violence prevention credentials, they lost ground in both the House and Senate.

snip

http://www.candidatesonguns.org

I would add that gun control is a huge issue with minority and urban voters. Sharpton came out strongest on the issue in the SC debate. It has consistently been shown that the majority of illegally owned guns in metropolitan areas come from pro-gun states.

The richest of All the Senators.

That says something.

While I'm sure there are some pro-gun control people...most are anti-gun control...even the Dems.

and I'm sure you don't have smog in rural texas, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have emissions standards.

If it annoys some people, it's too bad, because it saves lives

emissions standards. I live in a rural area but there are a lot of chemical plants in our county and nearby counties.

Don't know where you've been, but the Dean supporters have been putting up with what you're squealing and squalling about for months and months.

Welcome to the club.

Eloriel

to that!!!

:-) I guess I have to agree that DU was much more fun when we were bashing el chimpo.

They said it was a dingo, but I just know it was Clark in a clever disguise!!! I just know it!!!!!

n/t

First, Dean is not an "NRA Stooge" :crazy:

I mean you see the rating and POWIE BANG we just make the assumption.

Nothing like doing our part to ensure we have another 4 years of Bush in the White House.

I love Dean's gun control stance and I think his relationship with the NRA can help us win NRA states that we lost in 2000, especially those states that SHOULD have been won by Gore.

Dean likes the policy we have and wants to tie up loose ends with Gun Shows and Pawn Shops. After that he wants to let the states decide what is best for gun control.

See, the problem in our country is Gun Control laws are not "One Size fits All" and until us progressives voters start understanding that we will always have a problem with the NRA come election time.

Take West Virgina - we should have easily won that state in 2000; heck Sen Robert Byrd won it with 65% of the vote and you think Gore could have at least pick up the majority. But he lost WV and believe me the Greens hardly made a blip on the radar in that state.

What cost us West Virgina - the NRA. They went in there and ran ads against Gore and made people honestly believe that Gore would go around and collect everyone's guns and melt them (or something harsh to that nature).

See gun policies that we need in some states don't really work well in other states. So why should we force that identical policy across the country. Tighten up what we have (Pawn Shops/Gun Shows) and then let the states decide beyond that.

And speaking of which - cars kill tens of thousands of people per year too. Should we ban all of them??

no mercy for bad information!!!

instead of buying into NRA/GOP propaganda.

1. The NRA will never vote for a Democrat in a national election, even if he/she was to the right of Heston on this issue. The NRA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP, with extremists such as Grover Norquist and Ollie North on their board of directors.

2. Dean, for many many reasons, would never appeal to the typical NRA member.

3. Dean's "state's rights" position makes zero sense. Guns move between borders, therefore it is a federal problem. "One size doesn't fit all" but there needs to be a federal structure in place to ensure basic standards and to reduce the flow of guns from rural to urban states. NYC could pass all the laws they want and it wouldn't stop the influx of guns from Georgia.

4. The right to bear arms, like any other right, comes with responsibilities. Black kids in Brooklyn shouldn't have to pay the price for a Vermonter's "rights".

5. I don't understand why so many Dean supporters don't get that his position is fundamentally flawed. If you're anti-gun control -- just say so instead of trying to justify an illogical position. It's even worse when you perpetuate the NRA myth that gun control hurt Gore and the party in 2000. All the data suggests that gun control is a winning issue for the Democrats. How the party goes about it is another debate. I believe we need to scrap the current patchwork system and implement a more sensible, federal one. From there, each states can add more gun control to suit their situation.

I don't want everybody in my neighborhood to have an M16. But at the same time if push comes to shove a pistol wouldn't do anything against a National Guard, when it is timely.

I say timely because, personally, I feel a revolution in our system and in the names of our founders needs to be undertaken. At this point, however, the possibility of foreign powers intervening due to thier own intersets seems very likely.

Thus I am a flip/flop on gun control. The future will dictate my position.

for me persoanlly I'm kinda glad but I see how it could piss off alot of the base.

It fits with my views on the subject.

It will help win border states that might swing
on this issue.

Your gun control vs Iraq war idea is silly from
my point of view.

Saying that an unjustified act of international aggression
is better than supporting the rights of free citizens to
own guns for hunting, self defence and resistance to
tyranny is better in your mind but not mine.

"ideological witchhunt" - pot meet the kettle.

here in Montana possibly give him a second look.

I'm to the left of the Democratic party on most issues. In fact, economically, I am a socialist, I think workers should control the means of production, not capitalists. And I'm fine with this, in fact, I'm against gun control. Let's see, disarm the workers, leaving just the police and army with guns? And probably Pinkertons, private detectives and the like? No thanks...

He is Pro Labor
He was awarded the "Paul Wellstone" award for service to the labor movement by the AFL-CIO.
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr01082003.cfm
He refuses to sign free-trade agreements without environmental and labor protections.

He is a doctor who understands the importance of healthcare. He has promised universal health insurance

He is not a Washington beltway insider. He is a governor with executive experience.

He is fiscally responsible and would repeal ALL of the chimp’s tax cuts so the deficit doesn’t get passed on to future generations.

I’m not so hot about his support for gay unions or his pro-gun stance but then you can’t have everything you want.

Most importantly Dean had a spine before the polls started going his way. Once Dean offered real LEADERSHIP and said, “The chimp has no clothes” the rest of the candidates followed him.

bash away...

Where have you been? And he is NOT straight-up anti-gun control he is in favor of allowing local areas more freedom to decide the issue. He wouldn't stand in the way of municipalities or states enacting gun-control measures. You do realize that we have a little obstacle called the Second Amendment that somewhats limits our ability to control firearms in America? I personally believe that people have no business packing military weapons but I have no problem with them having handguns with some regulations (like requiring background checks).

...and can you imagine how this is freaking out Rove- who is counting on one-issue voting gun owners?!!

One reason for the second amendment - at least arguably -- is for us to be able to protect ourselves fromn tyrants.

Live free or die, etc.

Michael Moore is NO fascist and Dean's position on this has been well known for a long time.

YES it kinda troubles me/ But Jesus Christ, man, it is NOT the same as poisoning refugees in concentration camp or dropping radiation on civilians.

And it is NOT like Bush at all.

I used to be anti-handgun but ever since BushCo came into power I am thankful that I can go out and buy a gun with very little hassle. And I plan to do just that. When these fascists come kicking my door down I plan to take one or two out before they take me down. And never mind a national gun registry or anything approaching that--when martial law is declared and all guns are supposed to be turned in, my name will not be on any list. So flame away--yawn.

Yeah, just what we need, eh? MORE gun laws? Hell, the thousands of laws on the books now don't do any good.

Maybe they should address the root causes, like find out why, as a culture, Murkans are so damn violent.

As Moore discovered, Canada has just as many guns as we do, they just don't pull 'em out and start shooting over tomatoes on the Caddy and "stolen" parking spaces at WallyWorld...