Kerry and Dean on Guns

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Kerry and Dean seem to have very similar positions on Gun policy.
The only difference I see is Kerry supports requiring that all handguns are sold with a child safety lock.

Kerry:
http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=crime

Dean:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

[GEErnst]

1. Dean, NRA and political leadership

This is as posted on Google groups for the benefit of the gun rights militants. Search http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search for "geernst cato levy". The usually hyperactive militants have had very little to say:


The Cato Institute is representing plaintiffs in Parker et al. v. DC Gov. filed in Feb., 2003. Seach Google for "parker heller palmer ambeau lyon". The NRA filed a parallel suit representing
plaintiffs, Seegars et al. v. AG Ashcroft and DC Gov. Search Google for "seegars haile jordan brown hemphill". The NRA then filed to combine the cases. Cato vigorous opposed the combining. Robert Levy, one of the attorneys for the Parker plaintiffs was on G. Gordon Liddy's program Friday, July 18.

] He laid out his views in the Wash Times, 7/22,
"Battle of the Gun Ban,"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030722-093717-6859r.htm

also,
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030721-103633-5228r.htm ]

He explained that the NRA introduced Seegars with extraneous issues to divert the court away from the pure Second Amendment challenge. When consolidation failed the NRA instigated Sen. Hatch to introduce legislation to remove the DC law. No law. No challenge. The Potowmack Institute has said many times the NRA knows better than anyone that its constitutional goal is ultimately unachievable. It wants to keep any constitutional challenge out of court, but the NRA has no control over the true believers and purists,
http://www.potowmack.org/lobby.html.
The NRA's real game is to defeat progressive politics. Along the way it scams its members for donations to achieve goals it has no intention to pursue. We don't learn what is really at work in the "rabidly antigun" Washington Post, the NRA's most valuable asset,
http://www.potowmack.org/washpost.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2789-2003Jul16.html?nav=hptop_tb

http://www.nraila.org/NewsCenter.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=2848

The Potowmack Institute has the motions filed so far and will eventually have them available online. Cato's anarchic arguments go so far as to pervert Federalist Paper No. 46, http://www.potowmack.org/emerappi.html ,
one more time. The purists must think that Federal Judges cannot read the English language. The documents are available from the DC Circuit or through PACER. Total pages so far are almost 100. They can be requested at cost from the Potowmack Institute, [e-mail].

It will be interesting to see what the NRA and the bankrupt Democratic Party do with Howard Dean. The right wing agenda to defeat progressive politics goes so far as to repeal the 40hr work week, http://www.potowmack.org/lopztjf.html. All those working stiff gun owners will eventually have to choose between the consent to be governed and 12 hour days, 6 days a week in sweat shops and coal mines. Dean's appeal for a progressive agenda is national health insurance, the one proposal of the Socialist Party from the early twentieth century still waiting to be imposed. When the Clinton Adm. proposed national health insurance, it was denounced for wanting to impose a "socialist agenda on America". When the Potowmack Institute proposes a national firearms policy,
http://www.potowmack.org/nfp.html ,
roughly resembling the Militia Act of 1792, http://www.potowmack.org/emerappc.html ,
http://www.potowmack.org/milret.html ,
it is denounced for wanting to "impose a socialist agenda on America." Will we see how Dean succeeds in addressing and sorting out the ideological conflict? Vermont elects unabashed socialists to public office and allows conceal carry without a permit.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=491

] Another perspective:

Democrats Are Playing NRA Roulette
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe- ricker23jul23,1,6562001.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

also,
"Rolling Back the Twentieth Century,"
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030512&s=greider
Glover Norquist, the very personification of political
cynicism, now runs the NRA. The agenda is political not gun
rights.
http://www.potowmack.org/rightmov.html

Los Angeles Times; opinion
23 July 2003
by Robert A. Ricker

Robert A. Ricker is a lawyer and lobbyist who has
represented such groups as the National Rifle Assn.
and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep
and Bear Arms.

Much has been made of the decision by some Senate
Democrats to abandon their political base and
support legislation backed by the National Rifle
Assn. to shield gun makers from lawsuits by crime
victims.

... ]

If Parker proceeds the Potowmac Institute will file an amicus brief which will repeat and update our arguments in Emerson. Neither the Fifth Circuit in Emerson,
http://www.potowmack.org/emeramic.html ,
nor the Ninth in Silveira,
http://www.potowmack.org/silveira.html ,
have addressed the fundamental relationship between citizen and state and the difference between civil society and the State of Nature. We still do not know how many "Patrons of Anarchy" are under oath of public office,
http://www.potowmack.org/2ndtreat.html#94 .

The NRA will not argue for a constitutional right. The Cato Institute does not want amicus briefs filed, at least at the district court level, to corrupt and confuse its purist arguments. That should not be a discouragement. Now is your chance. File your briefs. We want the court to be well informed.

GEErnst
http://www.potowmack.org/index.html

The long reach of the internet:
http://stonerwitch.net/index.php
go to July 14. Some people are getting their minds openned.


Pro-Gun Groups Split on Tactics; Cato Institute, NRA Quarrel Over Challenges to D.C. Law
Washington Post
21 July 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20215-2003Jul20.html?nav=hptoc_m

Gunning For D.C.
Washington Post; Editorial
21 July 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20788-2003Jul20.html

Parker et al. v. DC Gov., February 10, 2003
http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf

Seegars et al. v. Ashcroft and DC Gov.,
http://www.nraila.org/media/pdfs/dc_case.pdf



GEErnst

[goodhue]

2. violence control

Citizens across the United States are now uniting, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make non-violence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control. Our work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Our focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values.

Domestically, we would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, police-community relations conflicts and work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as 'violence is inevitable' or 'war is inevitable'. Thus we will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus.

http://kucinich.us/issues/issue_departmentpeace.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. What would this 'Dept of Peace' actually do?

What would this 'Dept of Peace' actually do? I mean it sounds lovely but I read that webpage and it doesn't give any details of how it would function or what specific programs would be enacted. Why couldn't it be done within the framework of the depts of HHS and Education?

On edit: also I looked and I couldn't find DK's positions on gun control; I mean I can guess, but that is not the same.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. I Love The Term "Violence Control"

It takes the emphasis off the guns (that don't kill people), and onto people (that do).

However, Kucinich has a way of making really good ideas sound like really flakey ideas. Creating paradigm shifts is one thing, but no one has the right to say, "Thus we will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus," and not expect a smack on the lip. Who writes this stuff - the hippie from Beavis and Butthead?

I agree with just about everything said, but he makes me embarassed to admit it.