Beyond the Dome

While it's true that the crime bill helped cost Democrats Congress in 1994, few people are likely to remember that. Furthermore, it seems like the sort of issue Dems can use this year as more of an unmitigated success after 14 years of hindsight, as they've been doing with the 1993 budget which barely barely passed at all at the time.

This is a great illustration of one of the two problems which Joe Biden brings to the ticket. He has all the disadvantages which a Senator brings to a Presidential campaign, specifically a long record of votes which can be cherry-picked for attack ads by the opposition. Obama's short tenure in Congress has limited this problem to date.

The other problem is that Biden will eventually start talking off the cuff, and god knows how that will end.

“Our first responsibility is to protect the people. Their safety is our responsibility,” Pelosi said.

NO THANKS!

I am NOT your responsibility.

I don't want nor need your kind of "protection" which is to disarm me so that I can be a victim.

I always have and will continue to take care of me and my own WITHOUT your "help."

GunOwner Free-man

This might be instructive were it not for the fact that between 60% and 70% of the American people support an assault weapons ban of one form or another.

That, plus 80% of the country supports both gun registration and waiting periods.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

The fact is basic gun control is popular in this country - especially since the Supreme Court made it clear in June that government can't "take anybody's guns away."

A pro-law enforcement, tough on illegal guns policy is going to be popular with the broad swath of American voters, and will likely win far more votes in the middle of the electorate than it could lose on the far right.

Doug Pennington
Bradycampaign.org

Doug Pennington is using information from a poll bought and paid for using bogus results from an inadequate pool. The Joyce Foundation, who funds the Brady Campaign, also funds the polling report, in order to generate impossible results for their campaign against our civil rights.

Try again Dougie, the majority of US citizens do NOT support Gun Control, do NOT support so called "assalt weapons bans" since the FBI and the Centers for disease control both have admitted that the clinton gun ban did nothing to fight crime.

Stop fooling with our civil rights and go back to Europe where you belong.

Marie
Houston

Tell us, Doug.. Were a Handgun Control activist before they changed thier name to the Brady Campaign ? and how much did George Soros donate to the cause this month ? Man up, Doug !! Being frightened of your own shadow is no way to go through life

As a former police officer from New York, I find it so hard to convince the liberal democrats that the second amendment is a right for every American. I am surrounded by 98% ant-gun people who would put their lives in the hands of the police by dialing 911.

Plus if the police or the few CCW holders ever use their firearms in defense, the city will either prosecute them or they can be held liable in civil court.

Thank God I moved out of New York and moved to gun country which is the state of Nevada.

“Our first responsibility is to protect the people. Their safety is our responsibility,” Pelosi said.

Wrong! Your first responsibility, dear Representative, is to represent the people by defending the Constitution, which, btw, is what you promised to do when you took your oath of office.

Once again, the buttheads that get elected forget just WHY they were elected.

Oh, and working to restrict firearms ownership CANNOT be considered to be defending the Constitution.

Well Doug the opposition to your claims appear to fly in the face of your "poll data" doesn't it?

Doug & his Brady Bunch allies have been and always will be a ship of fools with their heads so far up their rectums they can lick their initials in tomorrow's garbage and rest assured we'll see those initials time & time again as they continue their dumping on this great nation and the Constitution that binds it.

Nit Wit Pelosi exposes her elitist power lusting with her comment, but the liberals won't see it this way. To them this is her job, to protect Americans from themselves and that evil Constitution that seeks to limit her benevolent guidance.

Something for the liberals to consider is there are 10 million deer hunters that set afoot every year to enjoy the great outdoors. A great portion of this figure are red blooded, chest thumping blue collar Americans affiliated with the Democratic party. Having said that, it must be an awful conondrum for them to have to lay in a bed with these rattlesnakes as they seek to vipe them at every turn. Much like the Baptist revivalists that handle rattlesnakes in their worship, eventually they get bit.

There is hope though. I continue to see the blue collar Democrats tire of being bit by these snakes professing to be their "friends" and reject their sh*t. This coming election will prove this point nicely...

It's almost like the Democrats want to lose...

When the GOP took control over the House and the Senate in 1994, Bill Clinton candidly said that the NRA was the reason the Republicans controlled both. It may be true (as Mr. Pennington states) that a majority of Americans respond in opinion polls that a ban on "assault weapons" (whatever that means) "sounds nice" -- but this is neither here nor there. What is important is that being in favor of a gun ban dissuades a significant chunk of the voting block and attracts none of it. Otherwise stated, there are a lot of us who will vote against any poltiician who votes in favor of banning guns. There are very few people who will vote against someone because they are opposed to banning guns. Most of the gun-ban crowd is voting Democratic regardless.

States like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania decide the election, and being in favor of a gun ban will drive off 10-20% of the vote in those states -- which is fatal.

The reason that being in favor of a ban on "assault weapons" (again, whatever that means) is so detrimental is that those of us who support gun-related civil rights recognize this as a trojan horse that is intended to numb the population to the concept of prohibiting firearms ownership. When the "assault weapons" ban doesn't work, the next logical step is to ban more guns. (And indeed, when the 1994 ban was set to expire, anti-gun Democrats introduced a "reauthorization" bill that dramatically increased the scope of the ban.) There are a number of reasonable steps that can be taken to reduce the incidence of gun violence, which do not involve a flat prohibition on ownership. When a politician ignores those and comes down in favor of simply banning categories of guns, we all sit here and go, "this guy does not care about our interests at all and is willing to sell us up the pike if it 'sounds nice.'"

Of course, the Democrats could be taking a different tack. Barack Obama could have chosen a pro-gun Democrat as his running mate, or at least one who didn't state in the YouTube debate that someone who owns an AR-15 is for that reason mentally unstable. Democrats could offer a fig leaf -- "at the conclusion of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban a DOJ study found that it had not had any impact on violent crime, so we're going to look at alternatives besides design-feature-based bans." It's like they want to lose...

David poses some thoughtful comments, which I believe have good answers - and are worth answering.

The balance of comments, however, show the kind of crazy that only a gun debate can bring out of the woodwork - singling out the people Americans worry about having guns in the first place....

The fact is, when gun activists won the battle of the Supreme Court's Heller decision, they actually lost the political war. News flash: Nobody can "take your guns away" now. The black helicopters are locked in the hangar.

As a result, the popularity of gun control becomes that much harder for NRA and other gun activists to demonize.

Why? Justice Scalia - of all people - made it clear that nearly every gun control law short of an outright ban is "presumptively constitutional," which grates on gun activists who can no longer (credibly) talk about "gun prohibition" without looking even more paranoid than they did before.

Now the country can get on with passing strong gun control laws that Americans want, and get on with the work of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people:

Ask Americans whether we want gun owners to register their weapons with the local police and the answer is: yes, by 4-to-1.

Ask Americans whether we want to restrict access to weapons like AR-15's and AK-47's and TEC-9's to law enforcement (or the military), and the answer is: yes, by 2-to-1.

Ask Americans whether we think having to wait a few days before leaving the gun store with a firearm is a good idea and the answer is: yes, by 4-to-1.

To argue that a tiny minority of voters who own assault weapons are somehow going to sway the election defies common-sense. (Besides, if they're really that committed, they'll vote for a NRA A+-rated Bob Barr who represents their views far better than C-rated John McCain ever did.) We ban guns from felons, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill: clearly, Americans know the difference between total gun bans and gun control, even if a few gun activists not.

While it's flat wrong to think the 1994 AWB "cost" Democrats the Congress (NRA took a lot of credit for a bad Democratic year, and pounded that message into conventional wisdom), that election is now ancient history.

In the face of overwhelmingly popular gun control policies after Heller, gun activists slowly feel the political ground shift underneath them, and ironically they have a conservative Republican Supreme Court to thank for it.

With gun ownership now constitutionally guaranteed, gun control is debated on the merits as the pro-safety and pro-law enforcement policy that it is - and in the broad middle of the electorate - where it wins over and over again, law by law, election by election, and state by state.

Doug Pennington
Bradycampaign.org

Well Dougie, I took a poll among the neighbors and we all decided, 4-1 that we want a lot of things; however, that doesn't determine what is legal, does it. Thankfully, we don't just do things on perceived popular demand by the brainless. The individual rights I was born with, as well as this country, cannot be destroyed with a "show of hands" by the ignorant.

"With gun ownership now constitutionally guaranteed"
(your nonsensical words)
NOW..GUARANTEED? What is that? I was born with rights...that are affirmed by our Constitution that was written by those brilliant men. Even without it, I am still born with those rights.... The Constitution affirms and recognizes these rights, carefully crafted to protect one another. I believe that many swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, as I have. I think you'll have to decline if asked, I suppose...although it never stopped the rest of the liars. Why not move to a place that is already the way you like it? Then you can hate America more openly...like the rest of our enemies, foreign and domestic.

So..what do you propose? Do you have guns, personally, to come and take ours? Or would you prefer to hide and utilize useful idiots with guns to come and get them? And then, how would you take the guns away from the idiots you attempted to utilize?
Or..would it just be an elitist thing, where only the well-connected and wealthy could afford to be armed, like the politicians? They insist on being surrounded by armed bodyguards at all times; is their life and family worth more than mine? Find something intelligent to do with your time, instead (although it makes you too much money) and give The Federalist Papers a good read...while you mind your own business. That should be the only law we need: Mind your own business and don't bother anyone.

Oh...and we're not stupid; we know it's a progressive thing, like the frog being brought to a slow boil. Informed people know that you cannot ban and control outright....that different factions of owners must be divided little by little, by banning things in different classes and "priorities of evilness" first. Registration is not legal, for obvious reasons, and will lead to confiscation. Gun control is not about guns, it is about control: people control.

Doug,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I share your assessment of the political ramifications of the Heller decision, although I do not think it is accurate to say that the Court has given the green light to all controls short of complete prohibition. (For example, the Heller Court struck down a law that prohibited keeping guns in loaded and operational condition.) The reality is that the scope of “keep and bear arms” will be unclear for some years to come.

However, it is not accurate to suggest that voters who oppose a future “assault weapon” ban are a “tiny minority” who will simply choose third party candidates such as Bob Barr. The only states that matter are the swing states, and gun owners are a substantial voting block in swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. At the state level, all of these states have seen significant pro-gun victories in recent years – “shall issue” carry laws were enacted only recently in Ohio, Florida has passed a “workplace [parking lot] carry” law, and the state of Pennsylvania has successfully held back a Philadelphia-led charge for more restrictive gun laws. In other words, gun owners are organized and are achieving results in the swing states.

I submit to you that a John Kerry who opposed reauthorization of the 1994 AWB would have carried Ohio and won the 2004 election.

Being in favor of a ban on “assault weapons” is basically a losing proposition because it attracts virtually no votes and dissuades a significant number of them. It is illustrative to compare the issue of abortion – there are many people who will vote on either side of the issue, and it is thus debatable whether it is most beneficial to be pro-life or pro-choice. (Ask Mitt Romney.) This calculus does not hold true for guns.

And finally, it must also be noted that results of public opinion polls are highly unreliable, and especially where the polls use generic and undefined terms like “assault weapon.” If the question is framed in a different light, e.g., “a ban on semiautomatic firearms based on their superficial design features” or “a law that deems the rifle used in Department of Civil Marksmanship competitions as an ‘assault weapon,’” different results will be achieved. The challenge for gun rights is successfully combating the deceptive “assault weapon” label.

I actually agree with Doug. Assault rifles should be banned. In fact, "Assault Rifles", by definition, are already banned for civilian ownership and have been for 74 years thanks to the National Firearms Act of 1934 which banned fully automatic and selective fire weapons. Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70 from November 1970 defines an assault rifle as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.". The AK47 sporting replicas available to civilians in the US today are semi-automatic only and can not be converted to fully automatic. Any fully automatic rifles or sub-machine guns used by criminals are already illegal.

As for Nancy Pelosi's claim that it's their job to protect us - unless they're planning to put a cop at everyone's doorstep, this is an impossible task. I don't care how many additional cops you put on the street, cops can't be everywhere all the time. We need to be able to defend ourselves. When you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, you create victims. Violent crime dropped 1.4% in 2007, by the way.

Nearly every state now has some sort of concealed carry permits and the number of concealed carry permit holders have increased exponentially over the past few years. Civilian gun ownership has also increased exponentially. If you think the majority of Americans favor gun control, let's put it on the ballot instead of letting a bunch of bureaucrats dictate policy. Even if we just added it as a survey to get everyone's opinion, I think it would at least end this debate. We can simply ask several questions such as:

1. Should semi-automatic rifles that resemble “assault rifles” be banned?
• Yes
• No
2. What limit should be imposed on the magazine capacity for a handgun?
• 10 rounds
• 15 rounds
• No limit
3. What limit should be imposed on the magazine capacity for a rifle?
• 5 rounds
• 10 rounds
• 15 rounds
• 30 rounds
• No limit
4. Should owners of handguns be required to register their handguns?
• Yes
• No
5. Should owners of rifles be required to register their rifles?
• Yes
• No
6. Should owners of shotguns be required to register their shotguns?
• Yes
• No
7. Should inexpensive handguns be banned?
• Yes
• No
8. Should inexpensive rifles be banned?
• Yes
• No
9. Should target practice at a shooting range be considered a lawful sporting purpose?
• Yes
• No

There should be concise arguments presented from both sides containing only facts and free from BS "statistics" or propaganda. Only real numbers from ATF or FBI reports should be allowed. etc...