Arming 6-year-olds won't win Dems the White House

Union Leader ^ | May 5 2002 | Roger Simon

[2Trievers]

A BUNCH of Democratic Southern governors were on a conference call with reporters a few days ago and I was kind of dozing off, when I heard Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes defend the arming of 6-year-olds. "In the South, listen, a rite of passage in a sense is when at 6 or 8 years old you get your first shotgun," Barnes said.

Barnes thinks this is a good thing. Me, I am not so sure.

I know a number of 6-year-olds. And they are good people and fine Americans. But they do all sorts of dumb things, like eating paste and pinching their little sisters, and pulling the tails on cats. And so do we really want to give them high-powered weapons?

Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia recently told a meeting of the National Rifle Association: "What many do not understand is that the gun issue is not just about guns. It's about values. It's about setting priorities. It's about personal freedom. It's about trust."

But that is the problem. I question the values and priorities of 6-year-olds — I think their personal freedom to shoot things should be severely limited if not eliminated altogether, and I don't know a single 6-year-old I would trust with a shotgun in his hands.

Some Democrats say I am being old-fashioned, however. They say that thinking like mine is the reason Al Gore lost the last election.

As it turns out, caving in on gun control and giving in to the National Rifle Association is a very hot topic in the Democratic Party these days. I first wrote about it last June, when Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe revealed that as part of a new Southern strategy, he wanted Democrats to stop talking about gun control.

McAuliffe and others share the belief that Al Gore lost some key winnable states in 2000 because of the NRA, and they are correct. But the Democrats are drawing the wrong lesson from it.

Gore (who beat George W. Bush in the popular vote by 540,520 votes and lost Florida to Bush by 537 votes, according to the Electoral College website) actually proved what Democratic Southern governors don't like to admit: You can win the Presidency without winning any Southern states.

Had Gore just won New Hampshire, for instance, he would be President today, not having won a single state in the south. (The South is generally recognized to comprise the 11 states of the old Confederacy: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee.)

But winning Southern states obviously makes winning easier, and Gore might have taken his home state of Tennessee, for instance, had he paid more attention to the campaign being waged against him there by the National Rifle Association.

As I wrote in my recent book, "Divided We Stand," Gore botched campaigning in his home state and was late in making personal appearances and putting up TV ads there. In Tennessee, voters were able to start voting as early as Oct. 18, and 36 percent of the electorate cast their ballots before Election Day, many of them having missed Gore's last-minute attempt to win the state. But what really sunk Gore in Tennessee (as in West Virginia and Arkansas) was a very effective campaign by the National Rifle Association, which bought $600,000 in ads in Tennessee and flew Charlton Heston, NRA president, in for big rallies.

Bill Clinton had succeeded in making gun control a mainstream political issue and was able to convince hunters that banning assault rifles and cop-killer bullets would in no way harm their sport.

Gore was not able to pull this off. Gore was not able to counter NRA attacks and was not able to reach across the cultural divide to hunters, many of whom were among the lower-income white males that he, in general, did poorly with.

But the Democratic Party is in danger of drawing the wrong conclusion from all this: Only 28 percent of the votes cast in 2000 came from rural areas, while 29 percent came from urban areas and 43 percent came from the suburbs. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 by winning with large margins in urban areas and coming within 2 percentage points of George W. Bush in the suburbs. Bush easily carried rural America.

The most logical place for Democrats to make big gains, therefore, is in suburbia, especially with soccer moms who like the Democratic message on tough environmental standards, pro-choice and stricter gun controls. And that is the real issue: If the Democrats wish to take back the White House, they need a candidate who is believable, not one who wants to arm schoolchildren

Roger Simon is a political correspondent with U.S. News and World Report.

[Shooter 2.5]

The only reason Miller is pro-gun is so he can keep his job. What the NRA is doing is helping him make the dem party understand that they can't continue to pass gun laws without losing votes. The danger there is that the dems will stop announcing their intentions until they get elected. And voters have vey short memories.

The funny thing is that the author is trying to write off the south in the idea that gore could have been elected without it. He lost Florida, lost the south and lost the presidency. For that matter, what kind of person should be elected that can't even win his own state?

[tet68]

Roger Simon is a political correspondent with U.S. News and World Report.

Well no wonder he's clueless!

When my father allowed me to have a shotgun at age 8 it was a sign of respect and responsibility for me to even be able to carry it rabbit hunting.

Demoliberals don't want their children to be responsible until they are around age 50 when they re-register as republicans.

[Shooter 2.5]

" If you weren't raised in the south, you wouldn't understand this."

Silly comment of the week.

[boris]

I have taught many children to shoot safely and responsibly. Some 8-year-olds are responsible and mature enough to learn to shoot with adult supervision. Some 18-year-olds are not and never will be.

I will tell you that I once had an experience with a six-year-old boy that turned my hair grey. His dad asked me to teach him--and neglected to mention his age. I feel fortunate that nobody was injured or died. In retrospect I should have refused upon first confronting him and seeing his lack of maturity.

One lives and learns.

--Boris

[Shooter 2.5]

I hope you come back to the Republican Party. Our mission is to destroy the dems before we can move the Republicans further to a conservative party.

[caltrop]

Not a chance. When GHWB became President the first thing he did was to begin firing Reagan people and installing his own brand of moderates loyal only to him and his idea that ideology and vision were irrelevant. The 20% of the Republican Party which will back any half-wit named Bush ensures a sufficiently fragmented primary will always go to one of them. Here in Florida the Republican Party is an embarassment saved only by in-migration. If the Democrats in this state had their act together they could defeat JEB Bush with no trouble. As it is, they'll probably lose even if they nominate McBride (who, without a record to defend, could be formidable) and perpetuate the myth that JEB carries the Republican Party when it's clearly the Republican line that gets him elected. Reagan gave us a conservative party which lasted until his biggest mistake (Bush) moved into the White House. In 1980 I spoke to Bill Casey about Reagan's running mate and asked that they consider Bill Simon, Ford's very capable Secretary of the Treasury and the father of the current Republican candidate for Governor of California. I just about fainted when he selected Bush. Compounding his error, he kept him on in 1984. Just consider how much better off we'd be if he'd gone with Simon.

[john in missouri]

But when I was old enough to handle a rifle, my Dad took an orange, a .22 long rifle, blew up the orange, and explained how "That could be your head, or mine, or your Mother's, or Smokey Joe's ( the dog )"-- and for me, that was sufficient. Not all children have that grasp at that age, but parents generally know these things.

On Friday I became a gun owner. This morning I tanned my 3-1/2 yo's hide for "shooting" at his sister with a plastic baseball bat. This afternoon after church Mr. Canteloupe met with a most unfortunate accident. What do you think, guys, am I on the right track? :-)

[Mortimer Snavely]

Personally, I'd have waited a year on the hide tanning. As a general rule a three and a half year old is just barely becoming aware of cause and effect and still needs a lot of unconditional acceptance. Of course he's your kid and you and his Mom know him better than anyone else.

[2Trievers]

"This morning I tanned my 3-1/2 yo's hide for "shooting" at his sister with a plastic baseball bat."

Whoa! Perfectly natural for a boy. Then you would agree with the principal who suspends a kid who "shoots" someone with a chicken finger in the school cafeteria. Geesh lighten up. I see PC neurosis down the pike! &:-)

[Texasforever]

However, I was raised in very southern Oklahoma. One could see Texas from the roof of Dad's trailer.

LOL. Lake Texoma or somewhere around Marrietta?

[TN Republican]

Sweet Jesus, we have Okies who understand this article and know how to underscore that fact with sarcasm. Next thing you know, people from Kansas will be claiming to understand this article. Oh, the horrors!

[john in missouri]

Oh, I wasn't too hard on him. "Tanned his hide" was probably too strong a choice of words. I didn't dampen his spirit any! I do want him to understand from the beginning, though -- that guns are serious business requiring responsible behavior.

[Dakotabound]

2 miles north of I-10 since 1999.

Yankee newcomer.

1 mile south of I-10 since 1985...250 miles further south 14 years before that. (Don't let the nickname fool ya...)

[DugwayDuke]

I was born and raised in Wilson, Oklahoma, about sixteen miles due west of Ardmore. Dad retired in 1970 and moved to Lake Texhoma. His trailer was on a finger of land between Soldier Creek and Caney Creek about seven miles south of Kingston, Oklahoma. After Mom passed in '97, he lived in a nursing home in Fredericksburg, Tx. Dad passed on election day, 2000 at the age of 92. Not too bad for a man they said wouldn't live to see 40.

[DugwayDuke]

"Sweet Jesus, we have Okies who understand this article and know how to underscore that fact with sarcasm. Next thing you know, people from Kansas will be claiming to understand this article. Oh, the horrors!"

Almost as scary as people from Tennessesse who recognize sarcasm. (grinning, of course)

[from occupied ga]

What the writer doesn't understand is that politics is always in flux. Bush, a pro-2nd Amendment conservative,

I must disagree. Bush is no friend of gun owners. He publicly stated he approves of the phony baloney "assault weapon" ban. He has done NOTHING to roll back the unconstitutional import bans imposed by his statist father and the despicable Clinton. In fact he has done nothing at all to help gun owners. Where is your evidence that Bush is pro-second amendment (and his signing a concealed carry law in Texas doesn't count - he ain't gov of Texas no mo)?

[section9]

Well, wait a minute. If he did sign the CCW law in Texas, doesn't it follow from that that he's pro-2nd Amendment?

Look, you can't do things like take after the Brady Law in the first two years of your administration. That comes later, in the second term. You have to position yourself with the center for reelection, then you can run right in the second term.

Bush is not only pro-2A, but he's a gunowner as well. So I would only suggest that you give him time and not ask for everything at once.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Eagle Eye]

Yankee newcomer

BTW, I've never been a Yankee. Even when I lived as far north as KY, I was never a Yankee. Never.

[from occupied ga]

. If he did sign the CCW law in Texas, doesn't it follow from that that he's pro-2nd Amendment?

NO! He has had AMPLE time to demostrate any pro 2A tendencies that he has, but to the contrary,every chance he has had to show progun colors he has followed the Democrats lead. King George II is the one now blocking commercial airline pilots from being armed. He's willing to have an F-16 shoot down an airliner and murder everyone on board, but he is so against individual RKBA that he doesn't want the pilots to arm themselves.

As far as doing stuff in the 2nd term, Slick willie and his fellow democrats passed the "Brady" (may that evil hag rot in hell forever) bill during the 2nd year of his term. So your "just wait and he'll do something pro gun" attitude is either hoplessly naive, or you are grasping at straws to make excuses for a RINO.

[from occupied ga]

Oh, and three other things

Bush is not only pro-2A, but he's a gunowner as well.

Sara Brady, Ted Kennedy, Don Perata, Howard Metzenbaum, upChuckie Schumer, and Diane Feinstein all own guns. In fact Feinslime even had a CCW for several years. This does not make them pro freedom/progun.

So I would only suggest that you give him time...

You can take your suggestion to the estrogen fueled "day in the life of GWB" thread. The liberal republicans who gush endlessly on that thread are all too willing to make excuses for every statist action that King George II does - and he does plenty. However, everyone who has ever deal with politicians realizes that if they want to do something it gets done, if they don't, their first line of defense is timing ie "it's not the right time to do that now." This of course is total and massive BS. They have no intention of doing whatever it is, and trust in the overwhelming gullibility of the electorate to believe them.

and not ask for everything at once

Not ask for everything at once??? GWB has done NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to promote the individual right to keep and bear arms. King George II hasn't "given"* anything to gun owners. (like I said Texas doesn't count - he ain't gov. of Texas any more)

*Not that it's his to give. Our rights come from God not some politician.