Glorifying Guns?

NRO ^ | April 22, 2004 | John R. Lott Jr.

[neverdem]

	E-mail Author Send to a Friend <% printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Print Version

April 22, 2004, 9:13 a.m.

Glorifying Guns?
The Dems' lip service is just empty rhetoric.

By John R. Lott Jr.

John Kerry doesn't want to alienate gun owners. Just this past weekend, during the NRA's annual convention, Kerry's campaign issued a statement that the senator "is a lifelong hunter, supports the Second Amendment and will defend hunting rights." Previously, before the Iowa caucuses, Kerry even took time out for a well-publicized pheasant shoot.

Of course, Kerry wasn't alone in speaking out in favor of the Second Amendment. The most remarkable aspect of the Democratic presidential primaries this year was the universal agreement by candidates on guns. All the Democrats claimed that the Second Amendment guaranteed people the right to own guns.

Possibly, with all this agreement, it is not surprising to learn that last year Democratic pollster Mark Penn produced surveys showing that if Democrats didn't show "respect for the Second Amendment and support gun safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the Second Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on." Remember, Bill Clinton and Democratic strategists are on the record as saying that too strong a stand for gun control probably cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.

Yet the whole notion of marketing Kerry as sympathetic to gun owners has always been a tough sell. For someone like Howard Dean, the question was at least debatable. For Kerry, however, gun-control organizations have rated him as having a perfect record on gun control over his entire political career. Even this spring, when legislation to rein in abusive lawsuits against gun makers was voted on by the Senate, Kerry consistently supported gun-control efforts.

In January, the policy directors for the Democratic presidential campaigns pitched their candidates at an AEI-sponsored breakfast in Washington. Given their candidates' stated support for the right of individuals to own guns, they were asked where their candidates would draw the line on reasonable restrictions. Where do they stand on, say, the bans on handgun ownership in Chicago and the District of Columbia?

Only Joe Lieberman's representative answered the question. The now-former Democratic candidate "would oppose an outright ban on handguns, and he is not afraid to say so." And the others? Dean's senior advisor, Maria Echaveste, refused to be pinned down, because that would be giving in to "wedge-issue" politics "as opposed to really talking about values that are fundamental to all candidates and to the American people." Representatives for Kerry, Edwards, and Clark would not respond.

Supporting "reasonable restrictions" sounds moderate, but is an ownership ban "reasonable"? And, if so, what exactly does guaranteeing an individual right really mean?

Polling may have convinced Senator Kerry to change his rhetoric, but when he can't even "oppose an outright ban on handguns," the rhetoric is pretty empty.

— John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime.

 

	http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200404220913.asp

[neverdem]

BANG

[Puppage]

they want tough laws that close loopholes

WHAT loopholes? And, aren't the 10 thousand plus gun laws already on the books enough? What say we enforce them before we introduce any more, hmm?

[antiRepublicrat]

Let's parse out that statement:

"is a lifelong hunter," Meaningless.

"supports the Second Amendment" In his interpretation that guns are only for the government.

"and will defend hunting rights." With what? That doesn't necessarily mean guns, maybe he'll allow you a bow or maybe just a 2" Swiss Army Knife with which to hunt.

With that statement he was able to completely avoid the issue of whether the people should be able to own guns.

[Spok]

"Kerry's campaign issued a statement that the senator "is a lifelong hunter, supports the Second Amendment and will defend hunting rights."

If Kerry had a clue, he'd know the quickest way to piss off gun owners is to tell them the Second Amendment is about hunting. This is a serious gaff!

[jdege]

I support reasonable restrictions.

I don't believe that the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be providing assault weapons for free to anyone but veterans of the US military and their family members - everyone else should be required to pay a moderate fee.

[R. Scott]

What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting rights?

[DrNo]

I don't believe that the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be providing assault weapons for free to anyone but veterans of the US military and their family members - everyone else should be required to pay a moderate fee.

I paid $400 for my M1.

[LouD]

WTF are "hunting rights?" I don't know what Hanoi John's Constitution says, but the 2nd Amendment of my Consitution ain't about hunting.

[jscd3]

don't believe that the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be providing assault weapons for free to anyone but veterans of the US military and their family members - everyone else should be required to pay a moderate fee.

Th CPM does not provide free firearms - you pay for them.

The M1 is not an "assault weapon", not even by the totally ad-hoc description used in the 94 "assault weapon" ban. It is a 30 caliber, gas operated, clip fed, semi-auto rifle - it doesn't even have a detachable magazine.

[coloradan]

Possibly, with all this agreement, it is not surprising to learn that last year Democratic pollster Mark Penn produced surveys showing that if Democrats didn't show "respect for the Second Amendment and support gun safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the Second Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on."

Gentlemen! Please start your 'rat parsing machines! Those who don't support "gun safety" are anti-gun! If you don't support tough laws that close loopholes, you don't support the Second Amendment!

[pepperhead]

John Kerry doesn't want to alienate gun owners. Just this past weekend, during the NRA's annual convention, Kerry's campaign issued a statement that the senator "is a lifelong hunter, supports the Second Amendment and will defend hunting rights." Previously, before the Iowa caucuses, Kerry even took time out for a well-publicized pheasant shoot.

Nothing says I am a liar like claiming your a life long hunter the only thing you can point to is a well-publicized pheasant shoot you went to in Iowa.

Remember, Bill Clinton and Democratic strategists are on the record as saying that too strong a stand for gun control probably cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election.

And it cost the Democrats the Senate and House. It hurt them in most southern state offices as well. We can't trust democrats as long as Shummer, Kennedey, Boxer and the rest of the gun grabbers are in charge.

[neverdem]

This is a serious gaff!

Au contraire! It's quite routine for Kerry.

[neverdem]

What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting rights?

Huh? Say what?

[jdege]

The CMP should be distributing any and all surplus small-arms, to any veterans who want them, without charge. Any excess should be available for sale to non-veterans at a moderate cost.

And these should include not just M1903s and M1s, but M14s, M3s, M16s, M60s, M249s, and whatever else.

Understand - I understand how the CMP works now. I just don't agree with the way it works now.

The US military should never destroy an individually-operated weapon as surplus. The CMP should be distributing them to any veterans who are willing to take them. Including full-auto weapons. And to non-veterans, if the demand among veterans has been met.

But the question was what "reasonable restrictions" we might consider reasonable. I consider it reasonable for the CMP to impose a charge when distributing small-arms to non-veterans.

[Drammach]

I consider it reasonable for the CMP to impose a charge when distributing small-arms to non-veterans.

I would amend that:
Non-veterans with an active restraining order against a violent person and a case number identifying themselves as a victim of said violence:
(a) would be provided small arms at no cost.
(b) would be provide ammunition for same at no cost.
(c) would be provided training in the efficient use of said small arms.

Note that I do not specify gender, as either sex can be victim to violence and find themselves in need of a means of self-defence..

[45Auto]

I suppose in a broad sense it could be about hunting Enemies of Freedom, with no bag limit and no tag required.

[45Auto]

The original Sturmgewehr SG44 chmbered in 8 mm x 33.

[Lurker]

Ahhh, the original 'assault rifle'.

L

[45Auto]

"This weapon was developed by two german companies, Karl Walther (MKb.42(W)) and C.G.Haenel (MKb.42(H)). Both guns were intended as a replacement for submachine guns, bolt action rifles and, partly, light machineguns for front troops. After initial trials the MKb.42(H), designed by Hugo Schmeisser, was found superior of two, and further development took place under the name of MP43 (MachinenPistole, 1943, to avoid Hitlers opposition). Final version appeared under the designation of MP44, and then Hitler finally approved it, but the new gun received also a new designation - Sturmgewehr 44. The name stuck not only to that gun, but to the whole new class of automatic weapons, designed to fire intermediate cartridges."

"Total number of MP43s, MP44s and StG.44s produced was about 500 000, and these guns proved itself as very effective. Using a 30 rounds curved magazine, the StG44 could be fitted with all kind of accessories such as bayonets or silencers, rifle grenade devices, ZF4 scope or ZF 1229 Vampir infra-red night sighting device. The Sturmgewehr 44 made history as the first functional assault rifle; in fact, the term "assault rifle" itself is a literal translation of this weapon's designation. Obviously, the concept of the StGw influenced Mikhail Kalashnikov in his development of the famous AK-47 assault rifle (although the AK has a system of it's own right). The story of the Sturmgewehr is that of the late success of an ingenious and right idea that prevailed despite all efforts to stop it."

[An Old Man]

"I don't believe that the Civilian Marksmanship Program should be providing assault weapons for free to anyone but veterans of the US military and their family members - everyone else should be required to pay a moderate fee."

Oh goody, can I have one like this one?

When I was just a kid, we used to shoot beer cans off a fence with one of those.

Semper Fi

[henderson field]

"...will defend hunting rights..."?
The Second Amendment is not about hunting rights. It's not about collecting rare guns. It's about the sovreignty of the individual and his right to resist tyrany. None of the other Amendments are enforceable if the Second Amendment is weakened. But John Kerry knows that. In fact, he's counting on it.

[humblegunner]

The Second Amendment is not about hunting rights. It's not about collecting rare guns. It's about the sovreignty of the individual and his right to resist tyrany. None of the other Amendments are enforceable if the Second Amendment is weakened. But John Kerry knows that. In fact, he's counting on it.

Nicely put.

[Vigilantcitizen]

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler 1937

Kerry: Talking about him hunting as a kid. Still enjoys hunting. Believes in 2nd amendment strongly. Bu also believes in responsibility. No right to place military style assualt weapons in to terorists hands. No right to have access to weapons of war. Those who want to use these weapons should join military. Police are threatened.

228 posted on 03/02/2004 11:17:11 AM EST by CheezyD

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Kerry: Talking about him hunting as a kid. Still enjoys hunting. Believes in 2nd amendment strongly. Bu also believes in responsibility. No right to place military style assualt weapons in to terorists hands. No right to have access to weapons of war. Those who want to use these weapons should join military. Police are threatened.

[PsyOp]

The Second Amendment - Commentaries

[ExSoldier]

"If Kerry had a clue, he'd know the quickest way to piss off gun owners is to tell them the Second Amendment is about hunting. This is a serious gaff!"

if possible, I intend to inform the public that watches the debates. I have a personal invitation to the first debate to be held at the University of Miami, here in South Florida. IF the style is that of a town hall or if I can contact the folks who ummmm invited me, I intend to insert a question for both candidates. One way or the other AWB will be over. I intend to ask if possible the following question:

"Second Amendment, RIGHT to SELF DEFENSE or PRIVELEGE to hunt?"

I'm trying to be as brief as possible for purposes of the sound bite and especially for allowing "wiggle room." That's why I didn't put "Right to CARRY" instead of just "right." Although Bush did sign RTC legislation in Texas, and subsequently signed reciprocity legilsation with states that share a border with Texas. Anyway, we'll see what can be done.

[Tax-chick]

What's the Civilian Marksmanship Program?

veterans of the US military and their family members

My husband is a USAF vet (and my dad's a US Navy vet). It sounds like we could get some free rifles here. The kids were wondering how they could save up enough money to pay for guns!

[Shooter 2.5]

http://www.odcmp.com/

Check out the rifle sales and the requirements.

[jdege]

CMP is a program that was established many years ago with the aim of improving marksmanship among the civilian population from which future soldiers would be recruited.

It's not fulfilled its proper function since the introduction of the M14, and recent administrations have worked hard to kill it off entirely.

The CMP does not distribute surplus firearms to veterans and their families without charge - I just believe that it should do so.