Are Democrats finally starting to get it...? - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

**Frenchy** · 01-03-2006, 03:27 PM

http://www.hackettforohio.com/newsro...-control-image

Democrats Recast Gun Control Image

Party Eyes Inroads in the West

Boston Globe
Saturday, December 17, 2005

By Susan Milligan
Globe Staff

WASHINGTON – The Democratic Party, long identified with gun control, is rethinking its approach to the gun debate, seeking to improve the chances of its candidates in Western states where hunters have been wary of casting votes for a party with a national reputation of being against guns.

The Democrats’ effort to soften their rhetoric on gun control is similar to the party’s recent efforts to recast its message on abortion, maintaining their support of abortion rights but welcoming more Democrats who favor restrictions on the procedure.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, who had been a critic of some forms of gun control during his tenure as governor of Vermont, has urged candidates to view gun control laws as state issues, allowing those in rural states to reflect the values of hunters and others hostile to gun control, while supporting restrictions in urban areas with serious crime problems.

“On gun rights, we’ve allowed the Republicans to paint us in a way that just doesn’t represent our values,” said Damien LaVera, a Dean spokesman, noting that Republicans have repeatedly portrayed Democrats as hostile to the Western way of life.

“It’s all about not letting the Republicans define our values,” LaVera said.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful arm of the gun lobby, has noticed the shift in positions of Democratic candidates. The percentage of money donated by the NRA to Democratic House and Senate candidates has more than doubled, from 6 percent in the 2002 election cycle to 14 percent so far in the 2006 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, said the group has “seen a marked change” in Democratic behavior.

“Certainly, we support more Republicans than Democrats, but we’ve seen in the last few years an increasing number of Democrats actively seeking the NRA endorsement and actually winning it,” Arulanandam said.

Even before Democrats began recasting their positions, gun control was in trouble on Capitol Hill. The assault-weapons ban passed during the Clinton administration, barring 19 styles of weapons, expired in September 2004 and Congress did not renew it.

Meanwhile, gun control advocates in Congress have been trying unsuccessfully to close the so-called “gun show loophole,” which allows unlicensed sellers to peddle their weapons at gun shows without having to perform background checks on buyers.

Democratic Party officials say they expect their candidates to have a wide range of opinions on gun control, and insist that the national party’s message of “responsible gun ownership” is not hostile to law-abiding gun owners. But some Democrats from rural states say the party still needs to do more to be inclusive and sympathetic to gun owners.

Candidates opposing gun control “are depicted by some in our party as a bunch of yahoos, and we’re not,” said Paul Hackett, a Democratic Senate candidate from Ohio and a member of the National Rifle Association. “We are just good Democrats who are pro-gun.

“As a party, our lack of understanding of gun sports is hurting us,” said Hackett, a former Marine who owns about 20 guns.

Democrats’ ability to attract rural voters in the West is a key to their hopes in 2006. In Montana, where Democrats hope to pick up a US Senate seat next year, candidates must be pro-gun to have a chance at winning, said the state’s Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, an avid hunter who has “more guns than I need but not as many as I want.”

“I guess I kind of believe in gun control: You control your gun, and I’ll control mine,” Schweitzer said.

Democrats have made some headway in elections in the Mountain West, Schweitzer noted, winning majorities in both houses of the Colorado Legislature and picking up the Montana governorship last year for the first time since 1988. But national Democrats need to understand that their Western members have a different view of guns than those who live in areas where “teenagers are wearing their caps backward, wearing baggy pants, and are shooting at each other,” said Schweitzer.

In states like Montana, with its vast expanses, where training in the use of guns is a rite of passage for children in some families, Republicans have often cited Democratic-led gun-control laws as a wedge issue between the parties.

Carl Forti, a spokesman for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, said the two parties still have a values gap on gun rights. And he said that the GOP isn’t worried about losing to pro-gun rights Democrats in rural areas. “We have had pro-gun Democrats before, and we have defeated them,” Forti said.

Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said his party does not impose any kind of gun policy. The party’s 2004 platform took a middle ground on gun control, pledging both to honor the Second Amendment right to bear arms and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Like Dean, Emanuel urges candidates to represent the wishes of their constituents.

“They’ve got to reflect their districts,” Emanuel said.

But some other party leaders acknowledge that as a group, Democrats still have an anti-gun image that could hinder even those candidates who oppose gun control. Some of the party’s most prominent members—including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California—support gun control, a more common view among lawmakers from urban areas.

Kathy Sullivan, chairwoman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said: “I think there are people here in New Hampshire who do think of Democrats as a party that wants to take guns away from responsible gun owners. It’s important for candidates up here to stress, no, that’s not what we want to do.”

Some gun control supporters question Dean’s stance that gun control should be a regional matter. Such an approach is not workable because people can buy guns legally in one state and use them to commit crimes in others, said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

But Hamm also acknowledged that gun control supporters have done a poor job framing their arguments in ways that do not make lawful hunters fear their lifestyle is under attack, Hamm said.

“Folks say, ‘You’re using that [assault weapons ban] as a secret message to try to get to our hunting rifles,’” he said. “It’s a shame they believe that, but we haven’t done a good job countering that.”

Democratic candidates in Western and Southwestern states say the gun control issue has become important because many rural voters, including many hunters, have grown more sympathetic to Democrats’ support for environmental initiatives.

Hunters are as concerned about having a place to hunt as much as they are worried about keeping their guns, said Tony Massaro, senior vice president of the League of Conservation Voters.

“Politicians in the West need to be able to run in rural areas, in addition to urban and suburban regions,” he said. “In order to do this, they need to protect habitat and not be seen as wanting to take away the ability to hunt.”

bd · 01-03-2006, 03:57 PM

Frenchy,

A move towards the middle by both parties on guns and several other issues can only be good for the people of our country.

We need, desperately to move away from extremism in both parties, and to govern our country with the good common sense the middle-of-the-road citizens of our country have always had.

It would be ridiculous to try to make a rancher in Montana to have to abide by the same gun laws that would be necessary for a citizen of New York City and vice versa.

It's good to see Democrats moving this way. I only hope they will remember this move after the elections are over.

Good article.

bd

Snakeoil · 01-03-2006, 04:00 PM

Naw, there just faking it.

one-eyed-fatman · 01-03-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

It's good to see Democrats moving this way. I only hope they will remember this move after the elections are over.

If we don't vote for them they will remember. If they win... not so sure.

**Frenchy** · 01-03-2006, 04:17 PM

Did you happen to notice how many times the word "Hunting" is used in this article? Less than 25% of gun owners "hunt". They will not discuss the true meaning of the 2nd. Amendment, and why gun owners truly own guns.
This is my real concern with this rhetoric.

one-eyed-fatman · 01-03-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Did you happen to notice how many times the word "Hunting" is used in this article? Less than 25% of gun owners "hunt". They will not discuss the true meaning of the 2nd. Amendment, and why gun owners truly own guns.
This is my real concern with this rhetoric.

Well you may have said it all with the word... rhetoric. Think I'll settle for some good old fashioned proof first.

mgeoffriau · 01-03-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd

It would be ridiculous to try to make a rancher in Montana to have to abide by the same gun laws that would be necessary for a citizen of New York City and vice versa.

What would be ridiculous would be to think that somehow one's geographical location within the U.S. had any bearing on the efficacy of the 2nd Amendment.

retired · 01-03-2006, 10:50 PM

bd, what type of gun laws are "necessary" for a citizen of NYC compared to one living in Montana?

Captain Ray · 01-03-2006, 11:13 PM

I just don't buy it... and neither will the Democrats base. The loony left are smart enough to know their candidates don't mean it, and the middle of the roaders (at least some) will be gullible enough to think that they do.

It's just a trick.

Raymond

bd · 01-04-2006, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retired

bd, what type of gun laws are "necessary" for a citizen of NYC compared to one living in Montana?

Do you think it would be appropriate for New York City in this day and age to approve open carry?

Do you think open carry should be restricted in Montana because it's illegal in NYC?

Like I said it's just practical common sense. It's a big old country we have. There are just some things that are not a "one size fits all" with the diverse population in the United States.

bd

01-03-2006, 03:27 PM	#1
Frenchy XDTalk 10K Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Mid-Missouri Posts: 12,890	Are Democrats finally starting to get it...? http://www.hackettforohio.com/newsro...-control-image Democrats Recast Gun Control Image Party Eyes Inroads in the West Boston Globe Saturday, December 17, 2005 By Susan Milligan Globe Staff WASHINGTON – The Democratic Party, long identified with gun control, is rethinking its approach to the gun debate, seeking to improve the chances of its candidates in Western states where hunters have been wary of casting votes for a party with a national reputation of being against guns. The Democrats’ effort to soften their rhetoric on gun control is similar to the party’s recent efforts to recast its message on abortion, maintaining their support of abortion rights but welcoming more Democrats who favor restrictions on the procedure. Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, who had been a critic of some forms of gun control during his tenure as governor of Vermont, has urged candidates to view gun control laws as state issues, allowing those in rural states to reflect the values of hunters and others hostile to gun control, while supporting restrictions in urban areas with serious crime problems. “On gun rights, we’ve allowed the Republicans to paint us in a way that just doesn’t represent our values,” said Damien LaVera, a Dean spokesman, noting that Republicans have repeatedly portrayed Democrats as hostile to the Western way of life. “It’s all about not letting the Republicans define our values,” LaVera said. The National Rifle Association, the powerful arm of the gun lobby, has noticed the shift in positions of Democratic candidates. The percentage of money donated by the NRA to Democratic House and Senate candidates has more than doubled, from 6 percent in the 2002 election cycle to 14 percent so far in the 2006 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, said the group has “seen a marked change” in Democratic behavior. “Certainly, we support more Republicans than Democrats, but we’ve seen in the last few years an increasing number of Democrats actively seeking the NRA endorsement and actually winning it,” Arulanandam said. Even before Democrats began recasting their positions, gun control was in trouble on Capitol Hill. The assault-weapons ban passed during the Clinton administration, barring 19 styles of weapons, expired in September 2004 and Congress did not renew it. Meanwhile, gun control advocates in Congress have been trying unsuccessfully to close the so-called “gun show loophole,” which allows unlicensed sellers to peddle their weapons at gun shows without having to perform background checks on buyers. Democratic Party officials say they expect their candidates to have a wide range of opinions on gun control, and insist that the national party’s message of “responsible gun ownership” is not hostile to law-abiding gun owners. But some Democrats from rural states say the party still needs to do more to be inclusive and sympathetic to gun owners. Candidates opposing gun control “are depicted by some in our party as a bunch of yahoos, and we’re not,” said Paul Hackett, a Democratic Senate candidate from Ohio and a member of the National Rifle Association. “We are just good Democrats who are pro-gun. “As a party, our lack of understanding of gun sports is hurting us,” said Hackett, a former Marine who owns about 20 guns. Democrats’ ability to attract rural voters in the West is a key to their hopes in 2006. In Montana, where Democrats hope to pick up a US Senate seat next year, candidates must be pro-gun to have a chance at winning, said the state’s Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, an avid hunter who has “more guns than I need but not as many as I want.” “I guess I kind of believe in gun control: You control your gun, and I’ll control mine,” Schweitzer said. Democrats have made some headway in elections in the Mountain West, Schweitzer noted, winning majorities in both houses of the Colorado Legislature and picking up the Montana governorship last year for the first time since 1988. But national Democrats need to understand that their Western members have a different view of guns than those who live in areas where “teenagers are wearing their caps backward, wearing baggy pants, and are shooting at each other,” said Schweitzer. In states like Montana, with its vast expanses, where training in the use of guns is a rite of passage for children in some families, Republicans have often cited Democratic-led gun-control laws as a wedge issue between the parties. Carl Forti, a spokesman for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, said the two parties still have a values gap on gun rights. And he said that the GOP isn’t worried about losing to pro-gun rights Democrats in rural areas. “We have had pro-gun Democrats before, and we have defeated them,” Forti said. Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said his party does not impose any kind of gun policy. The party’s 2004 platform took a middle ground on gun control, pledging both to honor the Second Amendment right to bear arms and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Like Dean, Emanuel urges candidates to represent the wishes of their constituents. “They’ve got to reflect their districts,” Emanuel said. But some other party leaders acknowledge that as a group, Democrats still have an anti-gun image that could hinder even those candidates who oppose gun control. Some of the party’s most prominent members—including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California—support gun control, a more common view among lawmakers from urban areas. Kathy Sullivan, chairwoman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said: “I think there are people here in New Hampshire who do think of Democrats as a party that wants to take guns away from responsible gun owners. It’s important for candidates up here to stress, no, that’s not what we want to do.” Some gun control supporters question Dean’s stance that gun control should be a regional matter. Such an approach is not workable because people can buy guns legally in one state and use them to commit crimes in others, said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But Hamm also acknowledged that gun control supporters have done a poor job framing their arguments in ways that do not make lawful hunters fear their lifestyle is under attack, Hamm said. “Folks say, ‘You’re using that [assault weapons ban] as a secret message to try to get to our hunting rifles,’” he said. “It’s a shame they believe that, but we haven’t done a good job countering that.” Democratic candidates in Western and Southwestern states say the gun control issue has become important because many rural voters, including many hunters, have grown more sympathetic to Democrats’ support for environmental initiatives. Hunters are as concerned about having a place to hunt as much as they are worried about keeping their guns, said Tony Massaro, senior vice president of the League of Conservation Voters. “Politicians in the West need to be able to run in rural areas, in addition to urban and suburban regions,” he said. “In order to do this, they need to protect habitat and not be seen as wanting to take away the ability to hunt.” __________________ ~SC Harvey~ 2008 Election..."Imbrace your ignorance, and vote your preference". It's quite simple, really... *If you vote for Obama, you are a fuking idiot. If you vote for McCain, you are a fuking idiot.* *If your vote is for the lessor of two evils, then you can be comforted knowing that you're less of a fuking idiot than the other guy! Because Fritz says so! RON PAUL IN 2008**

01-03-2006, 04:00 PM	#3
Snakeoil XDTalk 500 Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Iowa Posts: 951	Naw, there just faking it. __________________ Brain, an apparatus with which we think we think A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone

01-03-2006, 04:17 PM	#5
Frenchy XDTalk 10K Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Mid-Missouri Posts: 12,890	Did you happen to notice how many times the word "Hunting" is used in this article? Less than 25% of gun owners "hunt". They will not discuss the true meaning of the 2nd. Amendment, and why gun owners truly own guns. This is my real concern with this rhetoric. __________________ ~SC Harvey~ 2008 Election..."Imbrace your ignorance, and vote your preference". It's quite simple, really... *If you vote for Obama, you are a fuking idiot. If you vote for McCain, you are a fuking idiot.* *If your vote is for the lessor of two evils, then you can be comforted knowing that you're less of a fuking idiot than the other guy! Because Fritz says so! RON PAUL IN 2008**

01-03-2006, 11:13 PM	#9
Captain Ray XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,693	I just don't buy it... and neither will the Democrats base. The loony left are smart enough to know their candidates don't mean it, and the middle of the roaders (at least some) will be gullible enough to think that they do. It's just a trick. Raymond __________________ \"I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for that day.\" ~Abraham Lincoln~

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-03-2006, 03:57 PM	#2
bd XDTalk 3K Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Western North Carolina Posts: 3,864	Frenchy, A move towards the middle by both parties on guns and several other issues can only be good for the people of our country. We need, desperately to move away from extremism in both parties, and to govern our country with the good common sense the middle-of-the-road citizens of our country have always had. It would be ridiculous to try to make a rancher in Montana to have to abide by the same gun laws that would be necessary for a citizen of New York City and vice versa. It's good to see Democrats moving this way. I only hope they will remember this move after the elections are over. Good article. bd

01-03-2006, 10:50 PM	#8
retired XDTalk 5K Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: S. Calif. Posts: 5,320	bd, what type of gun laws are "necessary" for a citizen of NYC compared to one living in Montana?