« TN expands self-defense, etc. | Main | Memorial services for Jeff Cooper »
Some grounds for optimism
Daniel Taylor writes in The American:
"One of the first signs of this shift (away from being anti-gun) in the Democratic Party was in 2005, when Howard Dean was appointed to chair the Democratic Party. As much as conservatives hate him, he is pro-gun. So is the new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who publicly expressed his hope that the Virginia Tech tragedy would not result in an immediate push for gun control.
At the Democratic Presidential Debate in South Carolina last week, when the seven candidates were asked who owned a gun at one point in their lives, only New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama didn’t raise their hands.
In fact, the NRA’s highest-rated presidential candidate in either party is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Democrat."
8 Comments | Leave a comment
I don't think they have shifted from being anti-gun at all; I think they are just biding their time, and looking more at ways of chipping away at the Second Amendment a bit at a time.
Look, urban Democrats generally may like gun control, but I assure you that they like being in control of the Congress a lot more. If they think voting for gun control will get them thrown out of power, they won't vote for it.
Oh sure, Carolyn McCarthy will continue to introduce bills that go nowhere (if it weren't for gun control, she wouldn't be in office), but none of the leadership will push for it if they think it will cost them their majority status. You knew gun control was just a noisy corpse when CHUCK SCHUMER didn't come out screaming for more gun control after VTech.
The point is to continue to remind them that gun control costs them votes. I think a lot of pols paid close attention to the power of the internet and us gun-nuts when we (and the NRA had nothing to do with it) used a real grass-roots (not astroturf) movement and shit-canned the career of one James Zumbo.
While the NRA rating for Richardson is appropriate, the ratings cannot be relied upon for accuracy or even truthfulness. The NRA also gave Ca. Sheriff Brown an "A" rating and he is as anti-gun, anti-second amendment as one can be.
Funny you should mention Sheriff Brown of Santa Barbara County. That's where I live and I want to know who bought and sold the NRA? What's more, my friend (who's CCW permit is not being renewed by Brown along with those of half the permit holders in the county) talked with the ILA and they said "we've written off California." Makes me not want to renew if you know what I mean?
I've heard the same thing from the ILA ever since I've lived here (People's Republic of Massachusetts). I might have a certain sympathy with that decision in terms of economic efficiency if only they'd refrain from endorsing candidates here as well and leave that to the local organizations that actually know the candidates. I'd move back home, except home is California.
Richardson is higher ranked than Ron Paul? I kind of doubt that, but I could be wrong.
I don't read too much into Dean's A. It's hard to be a successful politician in Vermont (outside of Burlington) and be anything less. That says nothing about what he'd do in a different environment.
Didn't Gore used to be an A?
Yes, I plan to vote for Richardson in the primary here in IL. Probably won't do any good.
If by some stroke, Richardson wins the Dem primary I will vote for him against most other Republicans due to the 2A issue.
If some other Dem wins IL primary I will only vote for a pro gun Republican such as Ron Paul or Fred Thompson.
We all know that the Dem will take IL anyway.
If no decent 2A candidates are in the general election I'm continuing my usual tactic of voting for some unlikely nutball.
I'm proud to say I have yet to cast a vote for a candidate that has won the presidential election.