does Dean support the gun lawsuit immunity bill ?

he has put himself up as the NRA democrat, just wondering where he stands on this major bill that Bush has promised to sign

position on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) consistent with his state's constitution and the constitution of 27 other states. His state's constitution was adopted in 1777 before the Constitution was written and before the Bill of Rights were adopted.

In addition, many states have clearly stated that an individual has an inalienable right to defend self and property. An inalienable right cannot be given away so, Dean is acting in a very logical way in recognizing the primacy of natural rights. In the case of RKBA, if the Second Amendment doesn't protect an individual's RKBA, then the Ninth Amendment protects it because an individual's right to defend self is clearly stated in many state constitutions.

defenders of gun-nut a-holes

The bill has nothing to do with people having the right to bare arms, nor does any bill that will ever be introduced in the next 50 years.

a "NRA democrat"?

You did not give a bill, so I assumed you meant the Assault Weapons Ban. If that is the bill you meant, it does involve an individual's RKBA.

If you meant the bill to prevent frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers, it does involve an individual's RKBA.

S. 659: "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"


it already passed the house

it does affect RKBA because anti-RKBA groups have stated they intend to sue gun mfgs and dealers in order to make their business uneconomical.

That is a backdoor method of preventing individuals from exercising their inalienable right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and property.

This proves just how easily manipulatable the Dean/Anti-war crowd has become. Or I should say many in it. His platform has become dogma.

The US have become terrorists and democrats want to take our guns away

dr. Dean should be ashamed of how he's caralled his followers

know very little about the RKBA issue. I recommend you begin your education by visiting the J/PS forum here on DU and read posts from both sides of the issue.

As to Dean, I'm neutral.


AND DAMM PROUD OF IT!

dr. Dean should be ashamed of how he's caralled his followers

Yeah, because obviously he must be some Svengali to get people to support him. :eyeroll: Cheap shot. You want the actual answer to your question, I suggest you address it to the Dean Campaign and not to a board that is filled with casual and die-hard supporters. And, I caution you about accepting one or two people's statements as the Official Dean Position or even as This Is What All Dean Supporters Believe.

I appreciate it if you wouldn't try to place all Dean supporters in one big category. We're not pod people and each of us differ on our views on this and many other issues about which Dean has spoken. Perhaps you can contain your criticism of Dean to his policies and resist the temptation to condemn his supporters wtih unsubstantiated and wholely inaccurate claims.

He's pro-gun. Not that I think that's bad, but he is.

he just seems to be the most anti-gun control, which is just one of the reasons his platform is the most electorally, demographically, and politcally backward and unworkable of any candidate since probably Walter Mondale(yes, more than Dukakis)

I will explain why the gun issue for him actually would make it harder for him to win were he nominated, if you want

Personally, I feel that 'leaving it up to the states' is a cop out way of not having to give an opinion (even when Edwards does it).

But, while I don't think 'the gun thing' will be particularly helpful to Dean, I don't think it will hurt him.

Why do you think so? Backlash among lefties? But his gun stance isn't hardcore enough for that...Hmm.

????

Dean already has the least support among blacks of any serious candidate. Whether it's the fact that he's from one of the 2 or 3 whitest and smallest states in America or that he's a park avenue kid with an early life similar to Bush or the Geek-Chic liberalism more than traditional populism of his campaign I can't be sure. I do know that there is no way he would get and turn out close to the amount of black/minority support that Gore got.

Not so much for his origins but his stances on guns and the war

There is no doubt that urban leaders and activists would disaprove of an anti gun control democrat. And he would never make up for that loss among rural voters, people who believe in the NRA's ideals will support Bush in overwhelming numbers no matter what. Dean would not make up for his lost urban support there.

Also, the two largest and fastest growing groups of black(and latino) non-democrats(including idys and reps) are military and police personel. I've seen polls showing that military families support the decision to go to war in much higher numbers than the population at large(close to and exceding 90 percent). Dean would therefor give many of this group of black independants to Bush because of his anti-war stance.

It would just be icing on the cake however, as Bush would probably win against with 0 percent of the black vote

by the "Violence Policy Center" or the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"?

favor eliminating all inalienable rights or just RKBA?

even thinking about it would be political suicide for any American politician and there childrens children

We can't even get a law through that you can only buy one gun a month for christ sake

which includes banning handguns as advocated by VPC, Brady, and others.

If you wish to redefine gun-control, then what do you mean?

there have probably been a few red-herring gun control advocates who say that they should be banned, but the nations laws lean way into the side of the NRA retards, the propaganda of whom you seem to believe, and is lightyears away from even thinking of banning handguns. There isn't even a gun liscense.

from everybody's favorite, Jointogether.org:

*snip*

"The Washington, DC Chapter of the Million Mom March has organized an online petition in opposition to S. 1414, a bill introduced in July by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT).

The "DC Personal Protection Act" would repeal the District's ban on handguns, end strict registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms, and lift prohibitions on the possession or carrying of weapons at homes and workplaces.

It would also repeal the District's ban on semi-automatic firearms, allowing military-style assault weapons back into Washington's neighborhoods."

*end*

MMM has been integrated into the Brady Campaign for at least the last year.

With the following provision of the DC Code, many semi-auto rifles would still legal in the District, even if they "look" scary and, like the M1 Garand, actually are military weapons:

See DC CODE s 7-2501.01:
(10) "Machine gun" means any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:
(A) Automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger;
(B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.

add a HCI/Brady quote in a few minutes.

VPC Handgun Ban Backgrounder
QUOTE
America's gun problem is a handgun problem. Handguns exact an inordinate toll on American lives. The vast majority of gun death and injury–in homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings–is carried out with easily concealable pistols and revolvers. The public health model as well as the traditional approaches employed in protecting consumer health and safety lead to one inevitable conclusion: handguns should be banned.
UNQUOTE

that is incorrect and a typical "bumper sticker" response with no substance. His stance on this has to do with states' rights. He believes gun laws should differ from state-to-state, depending upon factors unique to each state. For example, Vermont's needs would be much different than that of New York. I'm torn on this issue as I can see both sides, but to state he is "pro-gun" is blatently inaccurate.

NRA democrat? He supports all the current gun laws, plus closing the gunshow loophole.

on the grounds that it restricts states' rights on that issue. I don't know for sure though and it is very late. If this thread is still active tomorrow I will see if I can find a link for you. I recall him saying he was against this bill on MTP but I could be wrong.

If you can find them.

Basically, he says they should get to special treatement. If they make a faulty product they should be held accountable.

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

No more federal gun laws; leave them to states
Dean brags that he has an A rating from the National Rifle Association. Dean favors the existing federal gun-control laws but believes that any further gun control is best left to individual states.
Source: Charles P. Pierce, Boston Globe Nov 24, 2002

...
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to an issue that you seem to break away from liberal Democratic orthodoxy and that’s gun control. This is a brochure in your gubernatorial campaign from the NRA.

“In November we should return a truly pro-gun Governor to office by re-electing Governor Howard Dean.” And again, David Broder’s coverage of your campaign. “Dean bragged that he has ‘an A rating’ from the National Rifle Association... he argued that ‘as Democrats, we ought to say keep the federal laws we have, enforce them, but no new laws.’ Get the gun issue off the table. It cost Al Gore three states—and the presidency.”

Which states did Gore lose because of guns?

GOV. DEAN: I think Montana, Tennessee and West Virginia. There may be more, but those are the ones I would guess, given their patterns with previous elections.

MR. RUSSERT: Democrats in Congress right now are saying that at gun shows, you can buy a gun on Saturday or Sunday and there is no background check, because many law enforcement agencies are closed. They want to extend that deadline. Would you support that kind of gun control?

GOV. DEAN: What I would support—I do support closing the gun show loophole, but I would like to see InstaCheck, which is the same system that we have elsewhere, and I think if it takes keeping somebody on duty in law enforcement agencies, that would be fine. Look, let me explain to you why I take the position I do on gun control. In Vermont, in the last 11 years, we’ve had between a high of 25 and a low of five homicides per year. Most of them, the majority, are domestic related, not many of them have firearms and not one of them would be changed if we had gun control. We essentially have no gun control in Vermont. All we have is you can’t bring guns to school.

Now, I don’t believe for a moment that that’s appropriate for New York or Los Angeles or Washington, D.C. But the point I’m trying to make here is why does gun control have to be a national issue? We have some good federal laws. I support keeping them. We should close the gun show loophole with Instacheck and after that why can’t each state make its own laws? Why can’t each state address what they want to do about gun control as a state? Because what we need in Vermont is not the same thing as what you may need in Washington, D.C.

A guy in Tennessee told me, “Look, when you say gun control to me in Tennessee, it sounds like you want to take away the squirrel rifle that my father gave to me. When you say gun control in New York, it sounds like you want to get the Uzis and the illegal handguns off the street.” It’s two different problems. We have national laws. I’m not in favor of repealing them, but I think additional gun control ought be to be done on a state-by-state basis if the state wants it and we ought not to have a one-size-fits-all federal government approach.

MR. RUSSERT: But keep people traveling from state to state very easily.

GOV. DEAN: That’s right. And Virginia is a perfect example of this. New York claimed that a lot of their guns were coming from Virginia, so they had lax laws, so they signed a bill that said you can only buy one gun a month. That’s a Virginia law. It doesn’t apply to other states. It seems to me it addressed the problem in Virginia successfully. Why can’t we do that?

Democrats are getting killed on gun control. Democratic activists who basically are in favor of gun control are glad to see me coming in the West and the South, because they do not want to lose any more national elections on the gun issue.
...
http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2002_08_25_dean2004_archive.html

Massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=

He's not only racist (because he is from a mostly white state...the horrors!) but he is channeling Charlton Heston, too!

You also are attacking Duers personally (for their candidate choice) which I believe is against the rules.

Dean will be able to neutralize Bush on the gun issue. Bush will ALWAYS be able to outflank Dean on guns. And even if they're positions on gun issues were identical, Dean's liberal positions on social issues would make Dean unacceptable to most pro-gun voters.

make Dean unacceptable to most pro-gun voters."

Do you have proof of that?