Democratic Hopefuls Play Down Gun Control

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Democratic presidential candidates are distancing themselves from tough gun control, reversing a decade of rhetoric and advocacy by the Democratic Party in favor of federal regulation of firearms.

Most Democratic White House hopefuls rarely highlight gun control in their campaigns, and none of the candidates who routinely poll near the top are calling for the licensing of new handgun owners, a central theme of then-Vice President Al Gore's winning primary campaign in 2000.

Howard Dean, the early frontrunner this year, proudly tells audiences the National Rifle Association endorsed him as governor of Vermont. As president, Dean said he would leave most gun laws to the states. The federal government, Dean said in an interview here, should not "inflict regulations" on states such as Montana and Vermont, where gun crime is not a big problem. New York and California "can have as much gun control as they want," but those states -- and not the federal government -- should make that determination, he said.

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, a longtime gun control advocate, is careful to highlight his support for law-abiding gun owners. The Missouri Democrat said he is not interested in giving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives more authority to investigate gun crimes, a top priority for the gun control activist. "They have enough," he said in an interview.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17706-2003Oct25.html

It could be the one issue that helps get some moderates

I know in PA, whenever I asked someone who said they would vote for shrub, why they always said Gore wants to take my guns away. Ridiculous, but that's what they said. My God, kids get the first day of hunting season off, even in Pittsburgh!

Do you attend the Clark Meetups in Pennsylvania?

If so, can you pass the word about www.sportsmenforclark.com

We are trying to change the view that hunters have of Democrats. I may be naive, but I think we can do it.

but I'll pass the word.

I hate to say it, but it's kinder about time.

I understand the arguements against guns.
But I've got a family, and strange crimes are becoming more common.
The new trend seems to be home "invasions".
Breaking in while people are asleep. Tying them up, sometimes beating them, and robbing them. Sooner or later, it may start including just killing them.
It sounds paranoid and reactionary. My wife even feels that way, to a degree, about me.
I can accept that. I view it as a credit card for emergencies. I hope to never need it, but if I do, I'll be glad to have it, and won't hesitate to use it.
It's legal, registered, and has no "sporting" applications. It is a model made for one thing only.
Somebody cranked up on meth decides to kick my door in? Do you think there's time to call the police?

People are more concerned about the safety of their family than ever before. And I think it is a great idea to leave this subject alone as much as possible. The realities of the world aren't going to change. Wishing them away, no matter who is the next occupant of the White House, will matter not.
Just my opinion.

DO hesitate to use it. I think the biggest problem with owning a gun is the cavalier attitude that people have once they get it, like it's some kind of back-up plan. That's not what a gun is. A gun is a last-ditch resort.
A gun should be known about, and your family should know how to use it and how dangerous it is. They should have the respect for it that it is due. But, other than that, a gun should be like a skeleton in your closet- not talked or even thought about.

Gangs of armed thugs beat and rob people.

They don't care what is illegal or legal. They use guns indiscriminately.

Last week a police officer was shot to death near me. The fact that the hoodlum who murdered him could care less, is troubling.

Store owners need to proect themselves from these murderers and thugs. One way to do it is to make it legal to carry a gun.

even if you do hope (rightly) that you never have to. I took the concealed carry permit course in TN, though I never intended to apply for the permit at the end of it. The experience left me plenty confident in my ability to handle my weapon, and taught me what I need to do periodically at the range to make sure I'm not overly rusty on those skills. Well worth the money to take the course.

his lead. About a month ago several candidates were slamming Dean about his stance on guns. The gun issue is one of current issues where there are a lot of one issue voters, who are swing voters.

Vermont is doing the right thing in regards to guns. Gore's stance on firearms (perceived or otherwise) is pretty much why he lost in Ohio and some other states.

it might be one of those one-issue bits that might turn off a lot of those voters

Do it today! Don't delay! :eyes:

on this one.
Sorry.

for the Democratic Party.

The article said
QUOTE
Surveys showed that the gun issue played a huge if not decisive role in ending the Democrats' decades-long rule of the House that year. Still, many Democrats continued to target guns as a key contributor to violence and death, a belief reinforced for many by the 1999 Columbine shootings. Gore was among those leading the charge for new restrictions.

In the 2000 presidential primaries, Gore and former senator Bill Bradley (N.J.) engaged in what sounded to some like a bidding war for who would clamp down the hardest on handguns. Gore tried to distance himself from the gun issue in the waning months of his campaign against George W. Bush, but it was too late.

A key turning point in the debate over federal laws regulating guns came on election night, when Gore lost West Virginia, Arkansas and even his home state of Tennessee. Many of today's candidates blame the gun issue, in part, for Gore's defeat in those states and others. Gephardt said there's "no doubt" it "hurt" Gore.
UNQUOTE

If gun-grabbers like Fienstein did not exist, Karl Rove would have to organize and fund a group like them to get Republicans elected.

After we concede guns, they'll just drum up something else to beat and bully Democrats with. Everybody can clearly see the right is trying to roll back the progress we've made on workers rights, help for the poor, equal rights for women and minorities. Why can't they see that any candidate who would concede guns would concede the rest as well. Some of them have already made clear statements and choices in that direction. This country is having a collective nervous breakdown, the right and the left. It's all which candidate has the best propaganda. Makes me sick to my stomach.

political party. Karl Rove loves the gun control crowd.

A Presidential candidate supporting a Constitutional right? Oh my God! We must stop him before he ruins the Dem. party and all it stands for! <sarcasm>