Backfire--Democrats discover gun control doesn't win elections.

Wall St Journal ^ | May 19, 2003

[SJackson]

It's no surprise that Republicans in Congress aren't eager to renew the ban on certain semiautomatic firearms due to expire next year. What's more interesting is why Democrats aren't raising much of a fuss about it.

Our suspicion is that the left has learned the hard way that gun control is a political loser. The first signs came in 1994, after Bill Clinton successfully urged the Democrat-controlled House and Senate to pass legislation outlawing 19 types of "assault" weapons. In November of that year, several Democrats who had supported the ban, including then-House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington, were voted out of office in the Republican sweep. Mr. Clinton later said crossing gun owners cost his party more than 20 seats. In 1995, the House voted to repeal the ban, which wouldn't even have passed without a sunset provision, but the effort died in the Senate.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

It is not about elections.
Socialism can not stay in
power unless they dis-arm
real people.

[Lazamataz]

We win.

[harpseal]

indexing

[Jeff Head]

Laz, I sincerely hope and pray you are right.

I sincerely hope and pray that more blood does not coincidentally and convienently spurt from our TV screens as the issue comes closer to action in the Congress.

Jeff

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"The first signs came in 1994, after Bill Clinton successfully urged the Democrat-controlled House and Senate to pass legislation outlawing 19 types of "assault" weapons. In November of that year, several Democrats who had supported the ban, including then-House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington, were voted out of office in the Republican sweep."

The AWB renewal is dead.

It is not necessary for Dubya to expound upon the Constiution, the Second Amendment and Patrick Henry the way some knee-jerk "conservatives" demand.

All Congress has to do is ignore it, and they can easily do that if it stays off the radar screen.

[alloysteel]

So which constituency is stronger - those in fear of an inanimate object, which only causes disproportionate harm when misused, or knowledgable users of this same inanimate object, which acts as a personal deterent to assault?

[error99]

"...Proponents knew that all but a small percentage of crimes involving firearms were committed with guns that wouldn't fall under the ban..."
- - -
This sentence is written so poorly that I had to
read it several times and parse it just to figure
out what the author was trying to say.
- -
I think the author gives too much credit to the NRA.
- -
I also think the author mistates what the socialist believe about this issue.
In fact, the socialists do not see this as THEIR failure or as THEIR mistake.
They do not see this as a 'failure of their beliefs',
they see it as a 'failure of the voter' to accept their beliefs.
There is a BIG difference.
They feel they were successful in yet another step in their incrementalism.
In their minds the assault weapons ban might have been a tactical error,
but it has not changed the objective, only the methodology.

[Oberon]

The AWB renewal is dead.

It would be nice if Dennis Hastert would say so, however.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It would be nice if Dennis Hastert would say so, however.

Didn't you read the rest of my post?

Hastert saying ANYTHING would put it on the radar screen and give the DEMONcRATS and the Liberal press a wedge issue to shriek about.

What is your goal?

To sunset the AWB, or have Dennis Hastert mouth words you want to hear?

You can't have both.

Only one.

[Oberon]

What is your goal? To sunset the AWB, or have Dennis Hastert mouth words you want to hear?

Honestly, I trust Hastert only marginally more than I trusted Tom Foley. I'm concerned that if the issue does fade into the background, congress will quietly pass another AWB while nobody's paying attention.

And what I'm hearing from Hastert is that the Republican leadership is leaving that option open. Now should I credit him with political manipulation for speaking as he does, or should I take him at his word?

[Chemist_Geek]

It is not necessary for Dubya to expound upon the Constiution, the Second Amendment and Patrick Henry the way some knee-jerk "conservatives" demand.

All Congress has to do is ignore it, and they can easily do that if it stays off the radar screen.

Right, but if that comes to pass, then the mouthbreathers will be shouting that Bush wasn't strong enough, that he didn't use his office to push for a repeal of the 1934 NFA, they're not going to make the mistake of voting for a gun grabber like Bush ever again, etc.

One thing I do admire about the Democrats and liberals is that they will take their victories however they get them - legislation, through the courts, through Hollywood, however. We need to be the same way - Bush doesn't have to pount the podium and shout the "Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you!" quote for us to win this battle.

But, some gun owners would rather be a persecuted minority, for that feeds their martyr complex...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

And what I'm hearing from Hastert is that the Republican leadership is leaving that option open. Now should I credit him with political manipulation for speaking as he does, or should I take him at his word?

Did Bill Clinton say "This is a great step toward our goal of a totalitarian peoples' paradise" when the original AWB was passed?

To keep things under the radar screen, you don't say what you are actually doing. You say innocuous things that nobody can really interpret one way or the other, so the opposition can't use it for propaganda against you.

Politics is a game, it is not a religion. In religion there is only truth. In politics there is only winning or losing.

I would think "conservatives" would be tired of losing after 40 years of DEMONcRATS running circles around us, but I guess I am wrong.

[Shooter 2.5]

When did the Assault Weapons bill fall off the radar screen? There have been dozens of articles in the newspapers and there have been more than a couple online polls asking the readers what should be done.

We need every single Repubican giving speeches why they won't vote for this thing. They need a united front to combat it. If gun control is a dead issue, we have to continue to bring it up by trying to remove it. If the Repubicans continue to mention gun rights with every speech it forces the dems to continue to mention the dying issue of gun control.

Like the Wall Street Journal said:
But liberals didn't care about these details because guns were simply a wedge issue designed to scare suburbanites, and particularly women, into voting Democrat. Now that elections have repudiated the strategy, the party's enthusiasm has waned.

The libs created gun control as a issue, let them fall apart because of it.

[caltrop]

You're right that Bush doesn't have to expound on the 2nd Amendment. It would, however, be nice if he'd take the opportunity to move on gun friendly initiatives when he has the political cover to. So far, 44 pilots have been permitted to arm themselves. If even Barbara Boxer wants them armed, why can't Bush simply require that pilots be armed whenever they carry US Mail? That, as I recall, was the policy until some time in the late '70s.

From where I'm sitting, it looks like Bush does the absolute minimum in defense of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, he's a real chip off the old block.

[Oberon]

I would think "conservatives" would be tired of losing after 40 years of DEMONcRATS running circles around us, but I guess I am wrong.

I'm hoping you'll school me on this, and not the other way around. Let's wait and see what happens. I'm going to be that Assault Weapons Ban renewal will turn out to be more of a contentious issue than you suspect, because of Republican waffling.

Our reps on the hill know that we peons in flyover-land don't like gun control, but they can't understand why. The matter baffles them, for the most part. In absence of constant reinforcement to the contrary, they default to increasing gun regulation.

Enough of this... I need to sit down and write some paper-mail letters to my Senators, the more-or-less honorable Messrs. Edwards and Dole. [sigh]

[E. Pluribus Unum]

From where I'm sitting, it looks like Bush does the absolute minimum in defense of the 2nd Amendment.

Dubya is not the answer to all our hopes, dreams and prayers. Nobody on this earth ever will be.

Dubya is, first and foremost, a politician. Anyone who wins elective office is a politician, by definition. Dubya happens to be an extremely shrewd one.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Maybe Dubya is really a closet gun-grabber. You want him to "move on gun friendly initiatives when he has the political cover." I am just glad he is shrewd enough not to go in the opposite direction.

Politics is not religion, it is war. In religion there is only truth and heresy. In war there is only winning and losing. You win a war by winning a long series of battles. Sunsetting the AWB is the objective of the current campaign.

We are scheduled to win this campaign, UNLESS the AWB renewal gets put on the radar screen because some "conservatives" are idolators who consider politics to be a religion and will settle for nothing less than dogmatic declarations by their false god in Washington.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I'm going to be that Assault Weapons Ban renewal will turn out to be more of a contentious issue than you suspect, because of Republican waffling.

It will only become contentious if the AWB renewal gets put on the radar screen because some "conservatives" are idolators who consider politics to be a religion and will settle for nothing less than dogmatic declarations by their false god in Washington.

[Joe Brower]

I am compiling a list of FreeRepublic folks who are interested in RKBA topics. If you want off my ping-list, just let me know.

Conversely, FReepmail me if you want to be added.

And my apologies for any redundant pings.