Just Now: NPR on Wyoming Primary: "Supporting gun rights is key..."

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=87974950&m=87974919

NPR predicts "Wyoming caucuses...will be hard fault" in an "incredibly close race." The commentator references the Democratic Governor's "strong support of Second Amendment rights. Supporting gun rights is key."

This from a Clinton operative, when asked how she would advise Hillary on guns: "I understand your perspective and cultural values out here..." She went on to say Clinton should define her stand lest others define it for her, saying "'Hillary will come and take your shotgun!'"

This operative might want address more than shotguns. No word on Obama's strategy.

There are folks in these threads who think 2A won't play in the 2008 election. Both Democratic candidates think otherwise and are ahead of DUers here. Trouble is, will they be ahead of their fall opposition?

A noisy minority rebels against it, but it's not a dangerous issue for Dem candidates. The argument that gun control is a dangerous subject for Democrats is a story fabricated by the gun lobby.

who live in cities.

I don't know one single person in Wyoming - Dem, Repub, Indie, Libertarian or whatever - who favors a a one size fits all federal solution to crimes committed with guns.

Such a solution would likely result in one that attempts to be responsive to city type crime problems, but would be totally inappropriate for a state like Wyoming.

that said, both candidates will skirt around the issue, because trying to please people in Wyoming will result in a soundbite being used against them in the GE.

We're fighting like hell for that here in Philly.

The question is "is a majority of people in this country for MORE gun control?"


And is the gun control being advocated for a) effective, and b) constitutional?

Bubba almost got shouted off of the podium yesterday in Laramie.

As I was running around preparing for the caucus.

Can someone send me some links regarding the news coverage of the Clintons in Wyoming? And Obama today? I don't have time to look for stuff, 'cuz I'm still doing caucus prep.

gun control is going to bite us in the ass this year. Clinton and Obama are both on the record supporting extremely harsh gun control measures. Gun voters are going to see McCain's half assed support of gun rights as manna from heaven after gun groups start showing our candidate talking about the AWB and national databases.

If the decision leaves the door open to severe bans on certain guns (handgun & semi-auto "scary" guns), the issue might pop out of some grave in Haiti and be with us again. I noted that Laurence Tribe is back-tracking again on his Second Amendment stand. Don't have a link, but it's in the Wall Street Journal.

We can rest assured they will take it out on our candidate.

If Heller wins, they might just feel comfortable enough not to care so much.

In inner-city areas with gangs and high crime rates, getting better control of guns makes sense.

The highly restrictive/prohibitionist policies in D.C., Chicago, NYT, SF, etc., keep poor folks (usually black) from defending themselves. These laws and policies are direct descendants of purely racist gun-ban policies, dating from the colonial era, through antebellum Southern politics, Jim Crow, to the present.

refer to <www.georgiacarry.org> then bring up their brief before the Supreme Court in the Heller case. It is fascinating reading and powerful history, giving an survey of gun laws designed specifically to disarm blacks -- up to the "modern era." There are also a brief by the Pink Pistols (a GLBT-rights group in support of the Second Amendment) and a women's coalition in support of overturning D.C.'s gun prohibition.

Stuff MSM doesn't want folks to read.

with gangs and high crime rates, is exactly where honest people need more options for self-defense.

The problem isn't honest people being armed, it's the career criminals being armed. Getting better control of guns in criminal hands on the streets makes sense. But denying concealed-carry permits to honest people and demonizing those that arm themselves in self-defense only empowers the criminals.

banning semiautomatic firearms.

The DLC, which I believe she and her husband belong (or belonged) to, had the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban as a pet project, as a way to appear tougher on crime than traditional liberal philosophy and different from the conservative "lock'em up and throw away the key" mentality. I don't think she's going to just let that position go, any more than she would just reverse on the Iraq war or NAFTA.

The marketing of the AWB has been effective enough to become well-ingrained in the liberal mindset.



The Joyce Foundation as I understand it is a charitable foundation that provides money and advocacy for a broad array of social programs in the Great Lakes area, one sizable fraction of which is trying to reduce violence via gun control.

The Wikipedia article has some information about their gun-control activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation


My maths says that in 2005, they spent $29,378,031 on grants, of which $3,056,117 was spent on gun-control programs. That's 10.4%.

A ban-abortion group would not offer its presidency to a pro-abortion person.

A ban-handgun group would not offer its presidency to a pro-handgun person.

Joyce funded the firearms portion of the NORC "General Social Survey". As I've pointed out before on this forum, the Joyce funded questions are biased to solicit responses that can be interpreted as calling for more gun laws.

I don't see how BO can divorce himself from Joyce unless he rejects and denounces Joyce like he did Farrakhan and his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, for giving Farrakhan its top award.

Two-thirds or more of their funding goes to environmental protection, education aid, and employment services.

If Obama was on the board of the VPC or the Brady Campaign, that would be very different. But the fact is that, currently, any organization dedicated to helping urban poor is going to be urban liberal, which means not being pro-gun-rights.

I'd be more interested in how he voted as an Illinois state legislator on any gun-control bills that may have come up during his time there.

as board member and prospective president of Joyce knew that or he is not smart enough to be president.

I also have no doubt that he joined a charitable organization to further his work with helping the urban poor and poverty-striken people of the Great Lakes area.

I don't know what his focus on Joyce Foundation policies was. Perhaps some Illinois DUers know. Maybe he lobbied the board to increase funding for the VPC, or maybe his focus was on job training and education efforts.

In either case, he's probably better than Hillary on this issue, public-perception wise. Schumer, Biden, and Feinstein haven't budged from their position on guns, probably because their constitutents haven't. I doubt Hillary will vary much from her husband's and the DLC's positions on this issue, either.

Obama is bringing in a lot of new voters and crossovers that I think he will be beholden to. Him and the DNC will be looking to "cement" as many of these new voters and crossovers to the Democratic party as possible, and taking recently-converted conservatives and hitting them with HR1022 would, I think, be a very bad long and short term idea. I think on this relatively minor issue he will not focus much on, being concerned with the much larger issues we are dealing with right now and in the near future.