Kerry's got a gun

[IndianaGreen]

I am a gun owner. I believe that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is an integral part of our civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Not all gun owners are "gun nuts," or are Republican, or fully subscribe to the most radical elements in the NRA. Many gun owners, and people that believe in gun rights that don't own guns, are an important part of the electorate.

Gun rights are, and will be an issue in Campaign 2004. Since GD2004 is the forum to discuss the candidates during this primary season, I am posting this story about Kerry and guns in the hope we can discuss Kerry's positions on gun rights vis-a-vis the other Democratic candidates.

BTW, I have posted in the past about my strongly held belief that GLBTs (my posts about the Pink Pistols), and liberals in general, should arm themselves in order to prevent the rightwing from being the only ones that are armed.

November 03, 2003
Kerry's got a gun

Honestly, who does he think he's fooling? I'm sure that John Kerry hunted as a kid, and maybe he still enjoys it now, but really... does anyone think that Kerry is anything but pro-gun control? There's this myth in Democrat circles that as long as you show that you aren't going after hunters, or the "rural way of life" that anti-gun positions won't cost you in "Red states." Please.

I may be suspicious that Howard Dean's NRA friendly positions are due to the fact that he had to have them to get ahead in Vermont, I still trust Dean far more on guns than I do Kerry. If you live in an 'NRA' state you care about more than just hunting -- you care about concealed carry, extended magazines and restrictions on the number of guns you can own. A picture of Kerry wearing an orange vest isn't going to cut it.

To be fair, Kerry's not stupid. He knows that his gun control talk will be unhelpful to him in the general election, but first he's got to make it past Dean before he can worry about the general election. One of the only issues where he's got an advantage over Dean in appealing to the Democratic base is on guns. Kerry has no choice but to press on this issue, but he's trying to mitigate the damage by talking gun control while he's shooting birds.

People like me that care about gun rights will ignore the pictures (I don't hunt in any case) and focus on what the candidate actually says.

http://www.patiopundit.com/archives/003701.html



http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html

[lcordero]

1. I'll go one further

People like me that care about gun rights will ignore the pictures (I don't hunt in any case) and focus on what the candidate actually says.

I don't focus on what a candidate says, I focus on what the candidate has done in the past. And if I feel that they have gone wrong then I focus on what they have done to make things right.

[CalebHayes]

2. Okay, this is funny!

I found it on a freeper site.

[lcordero]

3. that is funny

:D

[KaraokeKarlton]

7. lol...it took me a few seconds to notice who was in that picture!

Whoever did that did a really good job on it, LMAO!

[Blayde Starrfyre]

4. This ought to be the least of your worries

Let's face it, gun ownership isn't going to be a big deal when Bush comes with his secret police and puts you in a camp. Don't fear the Democrats who are for responsible gun control, fear the neo-fascists in power now. They may talk about defending the 2nd amendment, but they are gradually stripping away the others. How long will it take them to get to your precious, precious gun?

[Egnever]

6. And you point out exactly why I dont want more gun control

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Its about having an armed citizenry able to stand up to the government should the need arise.

Aparently you think its a good idea we make it easier on them when they do come and try to take it.

[Guaranteed]

9. That's right...the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the 1st. nt

[Blayde Starrfyre]

10. Guns aren't doing us much good now

You claim guns will protect us from the government should the need arise. It seems to me now that if ever the need has arisen, it's now, and all the gun owners have not done a thing about it. If you aren't going to use your guns to stand up to the government, why even bother protecting that right?

[Egnever]

11. Sory the country still hasnt reached that point yet

But a few more years of opressing the middle class and you will get what you asked for.

Hell 52 % still think whats going on is peachy!

[DoNotRefill]

14. You're 100% right.

We should all surrender our guns, give up all of our constitutional rights, and then the Bush Administration will be happy and protect us.

:eyes:

[IowaBiker]

5. Hmmmm

The way John Ashcroft is going after all our other rights, does it reallly matter we'll only have the second ammendment left?

By then we'll be some kind of third-world nation where everybody's toting an AK-47 -- the Congo or Columbia or something, and living "Once upon a time in Mexico."

I own guns, I hunt every year, and have been a certified marksman since I was 11, but I still think your phrase, "radical elements of the NRA" is a super-redundancy.

To me, criticising a decorated combat veteran who likes to go hunting is a pretty silly thought. Particularly if that's all the powder you're packing with that argument.

John Kerry has enough experience on both ends of a gun for us to sit down, listen to him and take him seriously. And certainly that warrants the kind of respect to keep from taking pot shots at him.

Now, if you're the kind of gun owner who'd rather go with a "gun enthusiast" who has never seen the wrong end of a gun in defense our freedoms ... well then that's kind of throwing the " necessary to the security of a free state" thing right out the window with the bathwater, isn't it?

--Brian

[kurtyboy]

8. Well put, IowaBiker

I LOVE shooting. Trap, targets, whatever. I shot Expert Marksman many times with the Air Force, and would use a weapon as I would any other utility (with all of the attached gravity and consideration).

That said, I believe in some limitation on weapon ownership--somewhere between rifles and Hand-grenades. I'm just not sure where, The 2nd Amendment is a little ambiguous on this (What kind of arms shall not be restricted?--Tanks? Nukes? Chem-Bio? You get the point). I think my candidate, John F. Kerry, is close to this position--Guns OK, craziness not.

Kurt

[JohnOneillsMemory]

12. The 2nd Amendment is archaic because the gov't has far superior firepower.

I agree that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to maintain parity between the governed and the government. Doesn't work anymore, the technologies have changed.

When muskets were the going technology, that was possible.

Now the government has missiles, nukes, helicopters and WMD's ferchrissakes. Gonna hold that off and make them accommodate your demands? I don't think so.

There's no chance that the electorate can hold their own against 'our' government. Sad but true.

Instead, people get drunk, have fights, get suicidal, leave things for the kids to find. People are too erratic and unpredictable to have push-button control of life and death. There's no such thing as 'bad guys' and 'responsible law-abiding citizens.'

We are all capable of losing it and going postal, just as the horrors of Nazi Germany can happen to any population that experiences the same mass loss of their humanity.

[DoNotRefill]

16. Some simple math:

100 million gun owners.

How many people in the Military?

The government could win against an armed population if they used WMDs on the entire country. Otherwise, they'd be SOL. Rifles against tanks: Rifles lose. Rifles against tank crews when they're not in their tanks: Tank crew loses.

The IRA has a few hundred "actives" in the field at any given time, in a tiny area, where guns are illegal. The Brits have tanks, missiles, armored attack choppers, and WMDs too. By your line of reasoning, the IRA would have been wiped out in a few hours. Why didn't that happen?

[DoNotRefill]

13. Yes, it does.

"The way John Ashcroft is going after all our other rights, does it reallly matter we'll only have the second ammendment left?"

Once we're disarmed, we're literally at their mercy. If they choose to "round us up and put us into camps", we'll have no viable means of resistance. Peaceful protests wouldn't work, since such gatherings would simply tell them where to go to find us.

"Power flows from the barrel of a gun." Do we REALLY want the government to have a monopoly on force? Considering the current misAdministration, my answer to that is a resounding "HELL, NO!"

The Second Amendment is our absolute last-ditch line of defense against the Government. As such, and given the times we live in, it's more relevant than ever.

"When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?"---The Clash

[IndianaGreen]

15. Iraq is an excellent example of an armed citizenry

and the fits armed citizens can give to a foreign occupation force, or to a repressive federal police in the US.

[Johnyawl]

18. And yet that heavily armed Iraqi citizenry...

...couldn't protect themselves from Saddams tyranny.

[Hoppin_Mad]

17. This far-lefty is armed and eternally vigilant

[bigtree]

19. And Bush tried to take Iraqi's guns away

:eyes:

[FreeperSlayer]

20. ABB!