Kerry Slams Dean for his opposition to assault weapons ban

Statement from John Kerry on Howard Dean's Opposition to Banning Assault Weapons
October 31, 2003

“Today’s story in the New York Times on Howard Dean and the NRA reminds us that the fight against special interests begins in our own party.

“In an NRA questionnaire, Howard Dean said he opposed a ban on assault weapons and opposed even a short waiting period before buying a gun to allow law enforcement to determine if the buyer had a criminal record. Howard Dean’s opposition to sensible gun safety measures – measures now passed into law and saving laws but under siege by his friends at the NRA – is indefensible. And it explains why he has been endorsed by the NRA eight times.

“I believe we must put the safety of our children and families ahead of special interests like the NRA. As a candidate and as President, I will never pander to the extremist NRA for personal or political expediency. I will beat the NRA. I have done it before and I will make America’s families safer and more secure.”
http://johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_1031a.html

To Dean supporters, I pose this question. Aren't guns in our country responsible for more deaths than all the wars America has fought in combined? Shouldn't having a candidate who fully and vocally supports this legislation and possible future common sense gun legislation be more important than hjaving a candidate who without a vote, says he opposed recent military action in Iraq?
Iraq has been responsible for fewer than 500 Americans dead while significantly more are killed every few months in the United States by a gun.
I for one, am proud to support a candidate who doens't side with the NRA in their opposition to this legislation (and who never has) and who also believes we democrats have to stand up for what we believe in again. We can't beat the Repukes by being like them.

:eyes:

Dean has had to repudiate and backtrack on his entire record in Vermont in order to look like a Democrat.

He puts up something on his website and we are supposed to forget it's the opposite of what he stood for his whole career.

It's constantly the same refrain. Oh, that's what I said or did then, but now, I'm saying this - trust me.

I love it. Dean has this stuff on his website and no one seems to notice.

Snippit from Deanforamerica.com

"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."

Kerry is getting desperate.

dean is desperate. it's simple; he wants to be president and will tell anyone anything to get there. he said in detroit "I don't care if 70 percent of the people in this country disagree with me"... whose opinion ~does~ he care about?

since we have such a broad field of candidates, i choose not to throw my lot in with the guy whose positions are unclear, contradictory or conservative at best.

Remember Dean's average donation? Isn't Kerry's like two to four times that? Calling Dean special interest. Wait.. that was a psychology term I learned a while ago, and it is called Projection.

Projection:
Attributing ones own thoughts, feelings, or motives to anonther.
(Psychology Themes and Variations, Weiten)

It doesn't matter what Dean says to who and why?

Public Records indicate that Dean is getting multiple $50-250 dollar donations from the same individual; 200,000 donations are not unique.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/politics/contributions/search.pl

that Dean's position as governor on this issue is apparently different from his position as a candidate for the presidency.

It's a legitimate point to bring up. Voters will now have to decide if Dean's current stand is a position of expediency. Kerry is not attacking Dean's position on gun control; he's attacking his integrity.

that Kerry would have a few different ideas as president than as a senator. Ya think the context of the job changes a bit when he has to think a little bit about the population of south?
Dean's job as Gov. was to look out for VT. OF COURSE his positions are altered when considering the job of looking out for all 50 states.

Some voters look for consistency in a politician, someone who's willing to take a stand on an issue and stick with it through an entire career. Many people view a politician who is willing to change his "beliefs" to fit a given political situation as someone lacking in integrity; lacking in character, even.

I choose a candidate to support based on issues. When I walk into that voting booth; when I pull that lever, I have to ask myself - if I'm voting for this person based on a particular issue or issues, will he or she keep that position or will that position be subject to change with whatever political wind happens to blow in the future?

Dean's changing position on gun control makes me believe that with him the answer is no.

some of us are bright enough to know the difference between an office that represents a single state and one that represents the entire country.
I know a representative who didn't like it, but voted with the gun rights people. Why did she do it? Because in 1999 we had a ballot issue for conceal\carry and 73% of her district voted in favor of it.
It shows a lot more integrity than the Urban pukes who just did the opposite and sold out their districts who voted overwhelmingly against it.

:dunce:

To Dean supporters, I pose this question. Aren't guns in our country responsible for more deaths than all the wars America has fought in combined?

Actually, guns aren't "responsible" for ANY deaths in this country. A gun is an inanimate object, a tool...and it cannot fire itself or kill anyone. Murderers use a variety of methods to kill, including, but not limited to firearms.

And I highly doubt that there have been more people murdered by a killer who used a gun than deaths in all wars combined.

There have been guns banned which are no more powerful than legal guns. Guns have been banned for what they look like, not necessarily how powerful they are. I lost a person very dear to me. He was shot in the back and killed while he was disarming another man. The gun that killed him was federally banned. So was the ammo used. The gun was not registered, obviously. The gun control laws did NOTHING to save my loved one. This man who was killed would be alive today if he could have legally bought a gun to protect himself. You see, he got into some trouble when he was young and as a result, he was unable to purchase or own a gun legally. He saved 6 other men from being killed that day he died. If if weren't for gun control, he most likely could have saved himself, too. People intent on committing gun related crimes do NOT follow gun control laws and they don't obtain guns legally.

It is the futility of gun laws that make them such a political waste of time.

Banning cars would save more lives than banning guns, but no politician is rushing to submit that kind of legislation.

I don't own a gun personally, and I have no interest in buying one, but I am so tired of watching all of this political posturing on guns and drugs when the demand for these items will always insure that they are available. A position paper by Dean or Kerry will have no more of an impact than the laws that are currently on the books.

Actually, guns aren't "responsible" for ANY deaths in this country. A gun is an inanimate object, a tool...and it cannot fire itself or kill anyone.

i understand where you're coming from, but i don't agree with your conclusion. cars don't kill people either; so why expand laws related to car accidents since those accidents continue to happen anyway? people intent on driving drunk, speeding and disobeying traffic signals do NOT follow driving laws. when a crime is committed, it is because someone broke the law. if gun safety was more of a priority in this country-- longer waiting periods, closing the gun show loophole, limiting purchases, etc-- it would prevent some crimes. of course there will always be people whose intent is to break the law; but there are many cases where crimes are committed because guns were obtained since the above methods are not in place. you have to start somewhere, and if it means a safer society, i see no reason why we shouldn't give it a try.

"cars don't kill people either; so why expand laws related to car accidents since those accidents continue to happen anyway? people intent on driving drunk, speeding and disobeying traffic signals do NOT follow driving laws."

Those laws regulate the USE of the motor vehicle, not the mere POSSESSION. See the difference? The same rationale applies to guns. Laws regulating the criminal use of a weapon (be it a gun, knife, tire iron, etc.) are wholly legitimate and different from a BAN of the weapon.

my point is that gun safety laws are important; they should and could be more of a priority. it isn't at the moment because washington is dominated by pukes who bow down to NRA lobbyists.

anyone who is intent on breaking the law is a potential criminal. there are many instances where things like closing the gun show loophole, enforcing child safety locks, increasing background checks and waiting periods could have stopped many crimes and accidents from happening.

this isn't JUST about banning weapons; it is also about safety. seeing as how no one has really gone all out and done something productive about effectively dealing with this issue, why wouldn't we at least try?

People still get killed with banned weapons. People still get killed with banned ammo. It's illegal for criminals to own guns, but they still get them. Gun control laws are nothing more than an inconvenience for law abiding gun owners. It's a waste of time, effort and resources that would be much better spent going after the criminals who are commiting the crimes.

Education can prevent most accidents. Use the time, energy and resources wasted on gun control to educate people about the safe use and ownership of guns. Lobbyists for gun control would do more to save lifes by going around the country giving free gun safety courses than they will ever save by pushing for ineffective and senseless gun control.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

than he does campaigning for himself. Same deal with Gepfart.

would be blatantly untrue. It just isn't. Interviewers have a tendency to ask Kerry about Dean; beyond that, he hardly mentions him.

Peepers

Kerry just lost even most Dems in my state. Sad, but true.

in my opinion.

Why do Dean supporters say on teh one hand their guy is the only true democrat, and then talk about the political expediency of Dean pro-NRA stance?

To those who say Kerry loses support on this issue I'd say two things:
1) He's out hunting in IA today and you can be certain you will see some nice photos of that to go along with his recent commen/ts about gun safety

2) Kerry may lose some support over guns but Dean will surely lose the general election (if he is, god help us, the nominee) over the fact that he's performed abortions and signed a gay civil unions bill.

1. Dean has never performed an abortion. The Planned Parenthood center he worked at did not perform this service.

2. All the candidates, and the current Vice-pResident, support civil unions if I am not mistaken. Why would this affect Dean more than the others?

You are right, we do need to stand up for what we believe in; but that includes equal rights and a woman's right to choose.

Kerry is losing support because he is not a particularly good candidate.

Totin' a gun won't help that.

The people who care about civil unions and abortions aren't voting Democrat anyway.

"Sad, but true."

Did you see this comment in my post? I personally don't believe in extreme gun control measures, but I don't fault Kerry for his stand either. He is my second choice, after all.

I simply made a comment about the political realities of Texas. YOU wrongly assumed it was an attack on the man.

And it's irritating as hell that blue collar, union, working class people will vote against someone simply because of this stupid (non)issue. But that's reality down here. If you choose to see that as an attack against Kerry, then so be it.

DEAN NEVER PERFORMED ABORTIONS. Thank you very much for helping Rove et al in their attempts to implant that idea in the minds of Americans.

The civil unions issue will be used against EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY LAST ONE of our candidates. They are ALL on record as supporting civil unions- Kerry even voted against the DOMA. Yet you think he'll be more insulated on this issue that the others?

Please stick to real issues. Kerry would have signed a civil unions bill too. And if he had been a doctor, he would have performed abortions. In fact, his position on these issues are much stronger than Dean's and likely to hurt Kerry more than Dean anyway. In fact, I want somebody who will really stand up on Democratic issues, that's why I'm supporting Kerry. Please don't use these kinds of tactics, they're really disgusting.

but I have to take issue with this...

"In fact, his position on these issues are much stronger than Dean's and likely to hurt Kerry more than Dean anyway."

How are Kerry's positions' much stronger than Deans?

Hes out doing photo ops today to try to show he isnt against guns while spewing gun control every where he turns. If theres anyone in this race who wants to have everything both ways its kerry.

I'm glad he's embracing gun control because it guarantees that he will lose.

As far as Dean getting it due to his NRA support, his stand on Iraq will make him lose the state anyway.

about the primaries. Hence, my focus on losing Dems. I know that we won't carry this state- yet. Give it a few years and we may hopefully see a turnaround, but that certainly won't be next year.

Kerry (my second choice people- I LIKE the guy!!) hasn't been polling very well down here and isn't showing the same kind of support that Clark and Dean have. I don't like that at all, since I'd much prefer the race to be between Dean and Kerry.

Let me repeat- I WAS NOT ATTACKING KERRY.

Dean's stance on guns is well established. He supports the legislation currently in place at the federal level (the ban on assault weapons, waiting periods for handguns, etc.), but favors allowing states to set their own standards beyond that. He states clearly (and often) that the laws for guns that work best in places like New York and California would be absurd in places like Vermont, Tennessee or West Virginia, where hunting is prevelant.

The only voters that would consider guns a deciding issue will appreciate Dean's stance.

It's worth noting that the q on the NRA survey didn't indicate approval of assualt weapons per se. Spinning wheels on wordsmithing won't make a dent.

are we going to abandon the weepy liberals who are in favor of increasing gun safety? is their voice to be ignored since someone is trying to court those who will distort the issue from gun safety to "the dems want to take all your guns away"?

i thought the point was not to stray from principles and stand up for what you believe in, and address the concerns of the american people. i think this qualifies.

Dean favors the Brady Bill- extending the assault weapons ban and closing gun show loopholes.

As a somewhat weepy liberal myself, I appreciate the reality that merely dealing with the gun show Insta-Chcks would be a significant accomplishment for a Dem admin.

Dean said he wouldn't support a ban on semi-auto weapons.
Semi-auto weapons are not assault weapons.
The AWB only banned semi-auto weapons with certain cosmetic features.
Dean supported the AWB in 1994.

This is pathetic.

"Dean supported the AWB in 1994."

Why do you say that?
Do you have some reference to back this up?
Is it true?

Ms. Enright, his spokeswoman, saw no contradiction. "It's not a federal answer," she said of his response to the questionnaire. "This is a Vermont questionnaire in 1992. In 1994, he said he'll support a federal law. Where's the inconsistency?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/politics/campaigns/31GUNS.html

What's wrong with banning assault weapons? What's wrong with requiring child safety locks? What's wrong with a waiting period and background checks?

It has nothing to do with being able to hunt. Never has and never will. It makes me nervous the way Dean distorts the question by maintaining that the types of laws on the books in New York City are not the types of laws needed in Vermont.
Well, maybe if Vermont laws were tougher there wouldn't be so many guns being brought down the "iron pipeline" into upstate NY and used to murder people.

Here is my problem on Dean's stand on guns. Saying that we should freeze the gun laws where they are is saying that we should not close the gun show loop hole. And as far as letting each state decide, it's not like what one state does has no effect on another. The state lines are a state on mind not real barriers. If I can't get a hand gun without a waiting period in my state then I will just go to another and bring the gun back.

that he favors closing that loop hole as well.

And here is the Q&A:

"Semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pistols, currently labeled `assault weapons,' are commonly used in hunting and target competition, including the National Matches and the Olympics. Current federal and state law allows a lawful citizen to possess semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pistols. Would you support legislation to restrict the private possession of these firearms?"

Dr. Dean checked the answer that read, "No, I would oppose restrictions on semiautomatic firearms."

Kerry's a jackass.

Could you provide a link proving that this is the Q&A that is in question. I have not seen that his Q&A was available. I doubt that the NRA's support is based on this question alone.

Also, if opposing restrictions on semiautomatic firearms means gun locks, background checks, etc. then he is against what is reasonable IMHO.

This is a 11-year old NRA Q&A, and doesn't apply to federal laws because Dean can't pass federal laws as a governer of a state. Is that the best Kerry can do? Pathetic.

Dean's been quite clear about his gun stances, and they are not that different from Kerry's.

to make sure I was right so next time someone says "Dean supporters do not call names", I can say "Oh I know one who does"

Happy Halloween!!!

In the Maryland governor's election, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (D) aggressivly screeched the "more gun control" message as the race got down the the wire and it looked like KKT was barely breaking even in the polls. Bob Ehrlich (R) said the same thing Dean just said about this issue, and guess who won the election in a 60%(D) state.

The 1994 AWB ban on military-looking firearms had the same effect on preventing "military firepower" from being sold to civilians as a ban on the sale of "military-looking clothing" would have on preventing the "military killing mindset" from being disseminated among the civilian population.:eyes:

...he is not saying "take away all guns!" the issue should remain as kerry (and kucinich) began-- keeping citizens who have problems with gun violence safe.

waiting periods, mandatory child safety locks, closing the gun show loophole... let the pukes spin it as they may, but we as dems shouldn't confuse his stance as being "anti-gun owner". his policy is for increased gun safety. let's debate the merit of that position and be the first to bring the issue to the american public in our own words...

Last month, my father's guns were stolen. How will gun control keep these guns and others that are stolen off the streets? How will gun control keep them from being used for crime? Aside from outlawing guns altogether, how will waiting periods and such help this aspect?

we shouldn't have welfare because some people will cheat, or we shouldn't crack down on corporate crime because some people will get away with it anyway.

batting a thousand with you today, aren't I?
I wasnt' "saying" anything. I was asking questions. I really want to know.

Unfortunately, it seems that people jump to conclusions sometimes instead of giving others input to help form their views.

their intent is not actually to get answers, or start a dialogue, but to make a point.

And when they follow-up with a protestation that they were 'just asking', it's usually pretty easy to see through. :eyes:


The fact is no law is effective against law-breakers. That's what law-enforcement is for.

Why pass any good laws? Someone will always find a way around them.

would have been - What are some things that we could do to help this aspect of the gun situation. What are some ideas on how to curtail the black market in guns and to keep these off th street?

I really don't know. As I said, my father's guns were stolen. We have heard rumors of what current drug dealer has posession of certain ones of them. Some of them are very sentimental. One was won by my mother (who died in 1999) at a Ducks Unlimited banquet. Yesterday, we finally had someone come forward with some info and he agreed to talk to police. He says that he did, so I really hope so.

And I guess I could have picked a better place to ask my questions than an obviously heated discussion. Foot is definitely in mouth!

also-rans!!!!!!!!!!!

Kerry's 'slams' are beginning to resemble 'pats on the back'.

Dean '04...Pro-American/Anti-Bush Lite

It's catchier than "I'm For Sharon," doncha think?

That's giving 'em hell!!!!!!!!

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

Or how about "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view."

Until he sensed a weakness in Dean's statements?

Why wasn't Kerry anti-Iraq war until Dean gained traction in the campaign?

Can you spell e-x-p-e-d-i-e-n-c-y

Where's the pro-active Kerry campaign?

Again, Dean's is a candidacy of Hope.

Kerry's is based on fearing what everyone else will do...not on promoting what he will do.

I'm just curious since Moore is a life member of the NRA.

Much of the pro-Kerry vitriol on this seems to be specifically anti-NRA vitriol. I'm not a fan of the NRA, but I have a much more mixed view of the NRA after listening to Moore, and, frankly, I would rather keep Michael Moore in the overall liberal camp than ostracize him based on identification with the group.

Don't judge him by his memberships.

current laws?

I'd be happy to read it.

Dean hasn't proposed repealing current gun control laws.

Choosing to keep current laws hardly makes someone anti-gun control.

though is that the Assault Weapons Ban is set to expire in 2004. If Dean's willing to "leave the issue to the states," that means the sunset provision will kick in and everyone can go buy and AK-47 as soon as he'd take office.

Will have any impact in 2004. The next President doesn't take office until 2005. It is up to Congress to extend the ban...Dean's stance is irrelevant to what happens in 2004.

Because if the ban is allowed to lapse in 2004, the President in 2005 will have the opportunity to bring it before Congress again. Dean, being such a states rightsist, would likely cop-out and say that "it's not up to the federal government to decide who owns an AK or Tec-9" or whatever. Ergo, it does matter what the candidates think about the assault weapon ban.

"Governor Dean is wrong for America on gun policy," said Michael Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March. "It makes no more sense to leave gun policy up to each individual state than it would to let each state set separate environmental standards. Guns cross state lines as easily as pollution."

http://www.bradycampaign.com/press/release.asp?Record=491

Dean is in hot water with this one. I hope he boils!

Shootin' Blanks

Kerry plans a bird hunt, but the pheasants probably don't have to worry much - it's a made-for-media special and reporters are bound to give plenty of advance warning with the sound of tromping feet.

...

But it's a sure sign of changing times when Democratic wannabes like Kerry and Howard Dean feel the need to show they have hunting in their blood while courting the liberal activists who pick their party's White House nominee.

Will the image of John Kerry, Huntsman, shooting down a few pheasant really change votes?

"It makes it easier for a person like myself who likes to hunt. It feels a little safer if your presidential hopeful isn't going to go after your typical normal shotgun," said Iowa farmer Ryan McKinney, a Kerry backer whose corn and soybean farm was picked as the scene of the hunt.

I think Kerry should make sure Ryan McKinney is fully aware of his stance regarding wanting to ban semiautomatic rifles.

Unbelievable...Dean supporters hate war yet are anti gun control. That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Admit it folks. You all are just as much interested in 'political expediency' as any one else and drop your moral tone with regards to IWR and the rest of it.

You and your ilk have convinced me not to vote for him. So I won't vote for anyone in the primaries.

Listen to what is in your heart and mind!

I know I wonder daily why they support a party that hates them, and then I see threads like this and realize I'm in the same boat. So, card carrying NRA Democrats shut up and vote even while being villainized. I am so glad that both Kerry and Dean are pro-gun, yet Kerry is trying to have a very detailed definition of what should and should not be allowed. It is that type of wordsmithing that drives middle Americans crazy.

Just say, are you for it or against it. I know, I'm the one who says we don't live in a black and white world. I constantly suffer from having 'a nuanced' position.

Guns. Good or bad? Kerry says good. Dean says good. Kerry attacks Dean over guns. WTF? Is Kerry trying to have his cake and eat it too?

"Guns. Good or bad? Kerry says good. Dean says good. Kerry attacks Dean over guns. WTF? Is Kerry trying to have his cake and eat it too?"

I thought the whole issue of Saddam's disarmament was over-simplified, but this takes the cake. "Guns: good or bad?" C'mon!