So now that Bill Richardson has dropped out

[scrinmaster]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3131590#3131612

Who is the next best Democratic candidate regarding the 2nd Amendment? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are definately anti-gun, while John Edwards doesn't seem to have any position at all. Mike Gravel just wants licensing and safety classes, and Dennis Kucinich is as anti-gun as Obama or Clinton, although neither of the two really has any chance of the nomination.

I'll probably be voting for Gravel in the nomination, unless Richardson somehow manages to stick in the race.

[Fresh_Start]

1. Edwards is okay with guns

they are part of the southern lifestyle.

So says my husband who I converted to democrat but turned into a NRA-advocate ever since he got paranoid about Bush.

[skipos]

2. Even though I own a gun, I really can't relate to the single issue gun voters

so I probably won't be able to answer your question. Of all the issues to make your priority... GUNS?

[scrinmaster]

3. It isn't really my number one priority,

but I'd prefer to not vote for someone who would actively try to eliminate my right to self defence, as well as one of my favorite forms of recreation.

[pipoman]

4. For me it isn't about guns

as much as the 2nd Amendment. We don't need any further erosion of the BoR. I think most people choose their candidate based on 1, 2 or 3 issues which are make or break issues. I believe it is time for the party to remove gun control from the platform and proclaim it a state issue or better an individual right. It has lost this party more votes over the last 3 election cycles than any other single issue and the gun control plank hasn't won the party any votes to speak of. IOW if the party would remove the gun control plank and make a strong statement of support for the individual right the party wouldn't loose any votes and would begin to gain back some of the rural and blue collar Dems who have been abandoned in recent years. The net gain would be very positive IMHO.

[skipos]

6. I don't disagree. nt

[pipoman]

7. Heyyy, is that avatar my Governor???

:kick:

[skipos]

8. Yes it is. Are you guys going to let her be on a Dem ticket someday? nt

[pipoman]

9. There has been talk about Washington...

I am surprised she has fans in the north country...is it purely physical? common' you can tell me...:spank:

[SteveM]

14. Not single-issue, but gun-control infects the Democratic Party like a carbuncle...

It would be more useful if Barack, Hillary, & Edwards sat down with a strong group of pro-2A progressives and shared some insights -- there just might be a chance that one or all of them will, as Cash put it, "come away with a different point of view." Right now, there is a mediocre conspiracy of silence by Dem. movers and shakers ("it's not an issue, really it's not. No. Really.") and little effort by us 2A defenders to advance our position to the candidates, let alone form a more sensible party platform.

Maybe from this rush of leadership vacuum rises the pitiful hope that Heller will clean up the Party's mess?

[pipoman]

5. I am moving to Edwards when it is official..n/t :(

[Recursion]

10. This is selfish of me, but I live in an anti-RTKBA city...

...so it's honestly not factoring much into my considerations, though morally it should. I couldn't support somebody as radically authoritarian as Kucinich is on the issue; but as far as Clinton or Obama go it just means we'll have to fight against another useless and politically crippling AWB in a few years.

[SteveM]

15. I understand the fatalism about "...useless and politically crippling AWB"...

what I can't understand is how this "Ban" continues to have credibility when in fact it banned nearly nothing. It frustrates me no end, like talking to someone about a problem with sex, or addiction, or even a serious disease -- most people shake their heads and walk away. There is a terrific moral commitment by some to an AWB that exceeds the history of the ban, its purported purposes and its actual effects.

The AWB has gone beyond the Pale and become a moral prohibitive, as strong as the WOD & anti-abortionism.

Nevertheless, we need to create a presence and get out front within our own ranks. When a Demo pushes down the plunger in Chicago, a friend's district in North Carolina blows up.

[appal_jack]

11. Obama could show some 'change'

Fellow Gungeon Residents:

I just posted this as a reply in the GD discussion 'Can Obama Win in the South?' I figured it might have a place here as well...

I have no illusions that anyone from the Obama campaign is reading this or will follow my advice. BUT, as someone who likes Obama quite a lot on many issues (and also his compelling charisma), here goes:

Obama apparently has been pretty anti-2nd Amendment in his past (no, I don't have links, but I have read here in DU's Gungeon that he has favored a ban on handguns and all semi-automatic rifles: if true, that is a deal-breaker with every southern male, and at least half the southern females I know).

Now, none of these pro-2A southerners (myself included) will swallow a complete flip-flop on the gun issue, but a nuanced statement of change could be believable and help Obama a bunch. Like maybe he go to a shooting range with Governor Richardson (or Senator Webb, or some other pro-2A Dem), and after handling a Glock or a 1911 properly and safely (and hopefully putting a few holes on the paper) he could issue a statement that his past anti-2A statements were based on the extreme gang violence that has plagued Chicago for much of his life. But, now, as a national candidate for the highest office in the land, he understands his responsibility to protect all the rights enshrined in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

If he avoids all the poison phrases (like 'sensible gun regulation,' 'assault weapon ban,' etc.) while issuing such a statement, I think it could go a long way toward diverting the pro-2A tidal wave that will otherwise drown him in the South. Doing the above, plus asking Richardson to be his running mate would go even further. Would this stop the racist opposition to a black Pres? (and a Latino VP!) No. But if Obama could just peel a few gun-owning southerners away from his opposition, I think he could win more than a few southern states.

SO, the reason, I re-posted this here is to ask: Would southern/gungeon/pro-2A Dem's find a statement and set of actions such as these by Obama believable and palatable? I would, but maybe I am just too charmed by the guy's charisma and powerful speaking style. If the latter is true, feel free to burst my bubble.

-app

[jody]

12. IMO Obama's anti-gun record will cause him major problems in southern states. Hillary's record could

be spun to become neutral but a complete flip flop could hurt.

She does have one adviser, Bill Clinton, who will emphasize that one major factor in the lost by Gore and Kerry was their perceived gun-grabber reputation.

If Hillary is the Dem candidate, I expect two things will happen.

1. The Dem platform will be changed from "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do"

to something simple like

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime." A necessary first step

2. To change her gun-grabber image, Hillary will accompany Cheney on a quail hunt hosted by Wayne LaPierre, this in jest only.:rofl:

[Jackeen]

13. Giuliani's trying that route.

He's now saying that what he thought would work in NYC may not be appropriate nationwide. From what I gather, it's not convincing any gun owners.

[SteveM]

17. Giuliani won't get anywhere, esp. when there's this guy from Arkansas.

[SteveM]

16. I have floated just such suggestions here as well, so I agree...

Frankly, I'm not sure how to do this. From what I see, there has one obvious formidable obstacle: to gain social legitimacy on public policy, you must still play MSM's game; otherwise, a candidate will feel "excused" if he/she doesn't engage a policy debate.

What bothers me is what I don't see. My brief experience with Internet "communication" has taught me that it's a great place to fund raise, develop "safe" relationships, cyberlynch and make a stink. No one seems to have any idea as to WHAT change looks like and how to achieve it. Like it or not, the Big-3 of MSM and the extinct Top 40 were markets where ideas, products and causes were given national and social presence; legitimacy flowed there from. Nothing like that exists now, except within the ever-thinning presence of MSM.

I listened to a debate on T.V. about the ability of Internet organizations to effect social change, and a blogger asked: "If the Internet had been around during the 60s, what would have happened to the Vietnam issue?" The subject quickly changed and no answer was given.