Hillary Clinton and the Pro-gun Vote
In a Thursday article for Town Hall, titled "Gun Owners for Hillary?", I examine Senator Clinton's success in winning gun-owner votes in the recent Democratic primaries. Susan Faludi's op-ed in the New York Times examines some of the changes in Mrs. Clinton's style which have made her more attractive to white males; my guess is that these changes are also particularly appealing to gun owners, who tend to place a high value on self-reliance and grit.
Also, could a President use an executive order to ban some or all guns or put a national licensing/registration regime in place?
Don't get me wrong - Obama isn't any better, and McCain, while the best of a bad lot on the gun issue, is not very good, either.
I must say, that I feel sorry for any serious gun owning Democrat who feels that they must support one or the other of their party's candidates both in the primaries and in the general election. I think, for gun owning Democrats, that it's time to seriously consider the "Reagan Democrat" paradigm.
Or perhaps they recognize the threat, but don't perceive it as a serious one: they figure that they can just register their guns and get a license to own them and everything will be fine. Here in MA, where we have just this situation (license required to purchase, possess or carry any gun), many gun owners go along with it without complaint. Since the Democrats currently control both houses of the legislature (90%), we own our guns on sufferance of the Democrats; currently a majority support gun ownership, but here in the "People's Republic of Massachusetts" that could easily change....
Sometimes you gotta chose.
There just isn't a candidate that I feel has the proper deference towards the bill of rights (and there hasn't been in a long time).
Anyone who loses sleep worrying that the government is coming to take their guns has been played for a fool.
Then again, I'd be embarrassed to admit publicly that I read Town Hall, much less was published in it.
Wow! I feel better already.
I don’t believe that policy-wise there is much of a difference between Obama and Clinton on guns, much like there isn’t much daylight between them on other issues. I think the reason why some gun owners are moving towards Clinton is because apparently being First Lady in a Southern State gave her more valuable experience than being a Senior Lecturer in the equivalent of “cultural studies and the law.”
Clinton may not agree with the majority of gun owners on, well, almost anything but at least she knows how to talk to them and doesn’t act like they’re some sort of strange anthropological curiosity (why are they so “bitter” anyway?). When Obama isn’t reading from a prepared script he acts and sounds like someone who only just now learned that there are a whole mess of people in the country who exist outside of Harvard law school and the Chicago Democrat political machine.
Tell that to the people of New York, Washington DC, and Chicago that have lost their rights to keep and bear arms. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.
The Pro-Gun Progressive said it best:
"It’s like watching two Klansmen argue over which one likes minorities more."
http://progunprogressive.com/?p=905
And as to Obama not wanting to commenting Heller. Well, actions speak louder than words and all of Obama's actions have been a gun grabber's wet dream.
Ok, exactly how many guns has the government taken away from private citizens in New York, Washington DC, and Chicago?
Like the fools in DC, NYC, Philly, SF...
Right. Denial of ownership isn't at all like confiscation, unless you're caught with one, and charged, at which point you'll never be able to own one legally again.
By golly, you are from MA.
-may the people in New Orleans finally have their guns back that were taken during Katrina? It has been 3 years with no attempt to comply with the court order. The guns are poorly stored and rusting.
-How about the people of California after Lockyer granted an amnesty and then sued to overturn it and confiscate the registered weapons? Can they have their weapons back?
-Can the New Yorkers whose registered guns were declared to be assault weapons and confiscated have them back?
-Can the people of australia and england have their guns back that were registered and later declared illegal?
-Can the gun owners of chicago who forgot to ask again for permission to own guns and got visited by the SWAT team have their weapons back?
I want to tell you about the day I had on Monday. I stopped in nine
towns throughout North Carolina, starting the day at 7:30 a.m. in
Elizabeth City and ending with a rally in Raleigh. That's the most
stops I've ever done in a single day -- for any campaign. And I
couldn't be happier to work that hard for Hillary.
I talked to a lot of people that day, and one thing was crystal clear
-- people want Hillary to stay in this race until every last voter has
a say. That's why Hillary and I are working so hard. That's why we've
made a deep commitment to keep campaigning, keep fighting, and keep
winning.
We have had a lot of success in this campaign, and our come-from-
behind victory in Indiana is the latest example of how Hillary wins
when she has your support behind her. As long as you share her
commitment to winning, this race is going to continue.
Our next test is just five days away in West Virginia. Hillary needs
your help right now to keep winning.
Contribute now to help us show the strength of our campaign.
I know something about coming back to win after you've been counted
out. So does Hillary. Over the course of this campaign, the pundits
have tried to declare a premature end to the race dozens of times.
Well, last time I checked, it's still up to the voters. And there are
a lot of voters who haven't had their say yet.
It's up to us to make sure that the voters in West Virginia and the
other states yet to come are given a choice. I urge you to act now to
help Hillary keep fighting.
Show your support by making a contribution today.
I wish I could talk to every last person who has worked so hard for
Hillary to thank you for everything you've done for her. You mean so
much to both of us. She's still in this thing because of your hard
work and your indomitable spirit.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton
SUPPORT FOR HILLARY CLINTON
WE WANT JUSTICE IN THE WORLD
WE WANT PEACE IN THE WORLD
WE WANT DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD
FOR AMERICA
Sharing a Vision of Peace, Justice, and Democracy for the World
WORLD DEMOCRACY MEDIA GROUP
NEW YORK
United for Peace and Justice
M WAHEED JADOON
As far as Chicago, California and New York City go, everyone that moves there knows it's not gun friendly. They chose what is (in their minds) the best place to live -- and they can leave if they want.
Mind you, I'm against (and think that they are in violation of the 2A) most of the gun restrictions in IL and NYC (no idea about CA law so I'll take a pass). Nevertheless, where you see a mountain, I see a molehill.
1. Most of the time, the question is not what a politician believes but what he regards as in his political interest. The fact that Hillary is pretending to be pro-gun in the primary is at least some reason to think that she believes the position is popular–even with Democrats–which is some reason to believe that she will find it in her political interest to be less antigun as President, if she wins, than her own views and past history would suggest.
2. The numbers offered in your Town Hall article are the sort of information that cries out for a multiple regression or some other way of taking account of multiple factors. We know that the support bases of the candidates differ: older people and less educated people tend to support Clinton, blacks tend to support Obama, labor union members and rural Democrats tend to support Clinton, etc.
I expect there is some correlation between membership in each of these groups and gun ownership. When you report that Hilary carried gun owning households in Indiana by 22%, we don't know if the reason is that gun owners like Hillary or that groups who, for other reasons, like Hillary tend to own guns. It would be worth trying to find out. Most obviously, Hillary was generally supported by rural Democrats, and rural people are much more likely to own guns than urban people, at least in the north where big cities tend to have restrictive regulations--not to mention more limited opportunities for hunting.
I wonder how well that attitude would translate to other rights.
That said, I know plenty of Chicagoans and they really aren't as pissed about it as you think they are, probably because they self-select themselves not to be. They just don't care. I don't know how to explain this to gun freaks - even those of us that support your position are not going to make a mountain out of this molehill.
Obama voted for it, but note that the bill only prohibited the confiscation of lawfully held firearms- in Obama's world, there are no such things. Obama has tried to ban all semiautos, ban all handguns, ban assault weapons (however defined) and ban concealed carry nationwide. Until recently (when he began declining comment), Obama has stated that he thinks the DC ban is constitutional in addition to being a reasonable and effective anti-violence measure. Does he really believe this?
Compared to this, Hillary Clinton is Charlton Heston. And she is one of the most reliably anti-gun political figures in the US.
That's fine. We'll do it. But remember that we may not be there for you either. Although I suspect we are stronger political friends than most.
At least 10% of the electorate votes solely on this issue. I do. It is a litmus test for Liberty. That % is enough to turn many elections and to cause concern for many other politicians.
It seems like every day we pick up a few more "no compromise" voters from the great mass of pro-civil liberties voters. I used to be a card-carrying Democrat (I still have my 198x Sustaining Member card) and I find that most pro-gun voters were too. We are pro-Liberty (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th Amendment, etc. and neutral on abortion), not Republican. Republican politicians, like John McCain sometimes need a painful lesson, before they understand that fact.
My attitude when faced with a choice is: all else being equal, the pro-gun candidate gets my vote, and I'm willing to excuse a fair amount of deviation from my ideals (I'm a conservative Republican) in order to elect pro-gun candidates.
Our experience here in MA (as you may well know) is that while other issues may more readily turn around, the gun laws only seem to get more restrictive as time goes on and it takes endless time and lobbying to effect even the slightest, most innocuous and beneficial changes.
Meanwhile, violent crime in MA, formerly decreasing, has more or less doubled since the restrictive MA gun law was passed in 1998, while decreasing or holding steady in the rest of New England.
You speak of the "party that does not support virtually all of the other rights that I hold dear;" I assume that you are referring to the Republicans. Could I suggest that when one is speaking of rights, as enumerated in the Declaration, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, that the Republicans are the party most supportive of those basic human rights. If, on the other hand, you are speaking of what a conservative would refer to as entitlements, well, no question but that the Democrats are the ardent supporters of those "rights." Unfortunately, if we keep expanding such "rights," - which always seem to come with strings attached - we will end up with little real freedom.
I'd love to discuss this further, but this is not the proper forum. If so inclined, feel free to e-mail me.
Self defense against criminal attack (mainly at home; relatively few gun owners carry concealed) is the real issue. Target shooters, hunters and gun collectors can generally function under all but the most absurdly stringent gun laws, but when you need (as in MA) a license to even OWN a handgun (or rifle or shotgun) and the handgun license is discretionary (the police chief can refuse to issue it on the basis that you are "not a suitable person," whatever that may mean in his mind), then you often have a problem when you tell him that you want a gun because you will feel safer at home if you have one....
Those people who don't own guns and don't really care (or think) about the issues involved do not surprise me, and it might be noted that most people in intellectual professions - doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc. - tend to be, if not anti-gun, at least disinterested in the subject. I just hope that they never find themselves in a situation where they really need a gun but don't have one. While the motivation to become gun owners might be irresistible after such an experience, they might not survive to take advantage of their hard-earned education.
So, no, I don't think that many "pro-gun" people really expect much support from the unconcerned (unless they have been mugged, etc) and the odds are, that they won't be. On the other hand, as a gun owner, target shooter, armed citizen, NRA and MA State Police-certified firearms safety instructor, I have known a great many gun owners, and I would only consider a very tiny minority of them to be "gun freaks."
do you seriously believe that the police (or some other law enforcement agent) shouldn't confiscate something that is illegal? hmmm...i wonder how far that belief will go? drugs? counterfeit goods? kiddie porn? a vial of weaponized anthrax?
given the past 6 or so years, I have no idea how you can say this with a straight face.
Then she'd appoint Dianne Fienstein as Secretary and Sarah Brady as Under Secretary. And bgar about 'how she protected out rights'.
The 'movement' I'll believe out of her on gun rights is the one that consists of her walking slowly down-range.
The poster is quite right, every Chicago resident thoughtful enough to arm himself before the handgun registry closed in 1983, retains the right to remain armed, PROVIDED that he remembered to reregister every TWO years, and never resided anywhere else.
I knew a guy in Chicago who got robbed, the cops told him to buy (an illegal) gun. If you are a white middle class person willing to play along with the Daley machine the ban doesn't apply to you; this is what Oren is getting at when he says Chicagoans don't care.
I would also suggest that both the Constitution and Libertarian parties are far more supprotive of basic rights than the Republicans. While 3rd parties don't often win major elections, in states like Illinois and Massachesutes the Republicans aren't going to win either.
I'd give them the edge only on the Second Amendment.
Third Amendment is a tie.
Bottom line: neither party trusts you with your tool.
1) Griswold, Roe, Lawrence are not real vote getters from the people that support them- in fact, I'd say they energize the opposition if they energize anyone....
Supports of things like federally guaranteed abortion and sodomy live in areas where their local government protect such things if the federal government was ever forced to back out of the issue. There is literally nothing to lose except on a weak public relations level. Gay sex and abortion are never going to be illegal in California or New York. Most gay people or doctors will not be affected by Alabama regaining the ability to restrict abortions.
Opponents of federally guaranteed abortion and sodomy live in areas that oppose such things and resent not being able to outlaw them. The potential gains for them are real political gains.
I'm not saying I approve of banning gay sex or abortions. I'm actually a libertarian. But I'm pointing out that the motivations at work here currently lean very far in favor of the religious conservatives.
2) The gun vote used to be a reliable vote for Democrats. The only difference is that it wasn't called the gun vote back then. It was called the blue collar/union vote. Pretty amazing how you guys pissed that one away.
Anyway, guns are a great litmus test for determining whether a candidate trusts us or suspects we are all secretly criminals. It's a great indicator of what a candidate thinks the role of government in our lives should be.
And do you really think the gun laws in Alabama (who's constitution I bet, like many states, clearly guarantees an individual right to bear arms) would be affected in the least even if the SC found that DCs gun ban, and all bans like it, was perfectly legal (I don't expect such a decision btw)?
Dave, you didn't mention the best part about the Clinton ad. She used a picture of a left handed Mauser, which doesn't exist.
Somebody using photoshop flipped the picture without realizing that guns aren't symmetric.
She should have borrowed one of Dick Cheney's shotguns.
If the fed.gov, under a President BHO or HRC, passed a federal ban on handguns, concealed carrying of arms, semi-auto firearms, sniper rifles (scoped deer rifles), .50 caliber-or-larger arms (including smoothbores), then the Alabama Constitution's RTKBA would be rendered null and void.
It's seems awfully far-fetched to imagine that the Federal government is going to ban handguns, scoped guns, shotguns (smooth bore) or CCW. BTW, I've always advocated 50cal as the cutoff for the RKBA, but I figured it could go either way.
(1) Funny to have you make a "laboratory of Federalism" argument about Griswold when I got reamed by Wuzz for making the same argument about self-selection in Chicago and NYC. As I've acknowledged, I believe their guns bans to be largely unconstitutional while you apparently want to roll back Griswold (Meyers v. Nebraska too, perhaps)
(2) Also funny, I live in a liberal state that criminalizes fornication, sex toys, all manner of "unnatural acts" (whatever that even means) and, of course, adultery.
Basically, living in a liberal state might not actually be all that protection from the patronizing morality of the State.
(3) It's true that the push to outlaw the things listed above it stronger than the push to protect them, but this is because I suspect 99.99% of people committing fornication in MA have no idea that they are violating the law (they are probably protected by Lawrence but they are still ignorant of the fact that, without the protection of the Federal government, what they do would be illegal).
Even still, I have no idea why the political realities -- support for the right to have sex is broad and shallow, support for the RKBA is narrower (note: not narrow, just narrower) and deeper -- should affect the analysis here. I will vote the candidate that I think is, on the balance, least destructive to my freedoms. I shudder to think about what might happen to Griswold and Lawrence if Stevens and Ginsburg are replaced by Roberts and Alito clones (as McCain promises).
As for the commenter who reported that a Chicago cop told a friend of his to buy a gun, that is all well and good, if your friend should get stopped by that same cop. The problem comes in when you get caught by a cop wanting to make a name for himeself with the very liberal and Daleyesque higher ups and can now use you, white or not, as a scalp for Daley's anti-gun crusade and to win brownie points for his promotion to lieutenant or detective. You may want to take that chance, but I would rather have my consitutuional rights restored and do it on the up and up.
BHO is probably bright-eyed (read: naive) enough to expend some political capital on some of these projects. He'll back off after he's had his tuchas handed to him, a time or two. He'll have some success in the process, though.
Funny, but I have yet to have any state that I've lived in even attempt to constrain my rather libertine preferences. Can't say the same for the guns I own or would like to own.
Absolutely.
As for Republicans supporting real rights vs. "rights"=entitlements, I stand by what I said. The Bush Administration and some Republican Congressmen may, individually, be Republican Party members, but they do not represent the activist grassroots base of the party. Unfortunately, the activist base of the Democratic party seems to be very much in support of "rights"=entitlements and willing to compromise away some of our basic rights under the 1st and 2nd Amendments in particular.
These are the right that, along with the 2A, I hold quite dear. When Roberts and Alito make noises like they are going to curtail them, I get nervous.
OK - to a fair extent I agree with you. Though not being familiar with all the cases that you mention, I can't say for sure on all of them.
With regard to education, though, what exactly (and this is way off subject, so feel free to e-mail me on it) do you mean by "educate your children?" Certainly parents should be able to educate their children pretty much as they wish, whether public, private or home school, religious or secular. I would consider that a right subsumed under "life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Does the state have a right to insist on certain standards of literacy or academic content? The state certainly has a legitimate interest in a literate citizenry; how far can the state legitimately extend that interest?
"'most people in intellectual professions - doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc. - tend to be, if not anti-gun, at least disinterested in the subject.'
That’s the image. Yet back in 1995 when I was teaching the initial flood of Texas concealed handgun licensees the medical profession had one of the largest representations of any."
Yes, that's been similar to my experience teaching Pistol Marksmanship Courses at MIT in Cambridge, MA - we are always booked up solid to the capacity of the MIT Pistol Range (15 points) and most of the students are engineers, doctors or students in those fields - not too many linguistics or psychology students! But overall, compared to the total staff and enrollment of MIT, our courses take in only a tiny percentage. Most people are either disinterested or anti-gun, something that education can sometimes cure, but how to get people to listen?
As an aside, the MIT Varsity Pistol team has been twice national champions in the last few years, beating such powerhouses as Army and Navy, thanks to Coach Will Hart.
I picked these cases because they all involve rights that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution but rather are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (or identical phrase). Those rights (educate your children in German, marry another race, have consensual gay sex, have contraceptives) are more important in the long run, IMO, than gun rights. They are more pertinent in more people's lives, for sure.