It Takes a Bubba: Tougher gun laws are better politics than you think

[wyldwolf]

From The Emerging Democratic Majority:

DLC President Bruce Reed takes on the conventional wisdom that gun control is a 'third rail' for Democrats in his Slate article "It Takes a Bubba: Tougher gun laws are better politics than you think." He argues that the key to successful advocacy of gun control is linking it to crime control, noting in two nut graphs:

The political case for not running for cover on guns is equally straightforward. Unlike most politicians, voters are not ideological about crime. They don't care what it takes, they just want it to go down. The Brady Bill and the clip ban passed because the most influential gun owners in America—police officers and sheriffs—were tired of being outgunned by drug lords, madmen, and thugs.

When Democrats ignore the gun issue, they think about the political bullet they're dodging but not about the opportunity they'll miss. In the 1980s, Republicans talked tough on crime and ran ads about Willie Horton but sat on their hands while the crime rate went up. When Bill Clinton promised to try everything to fight crime—with more police officers on the street, and fewer guns—police organizations dropped their support for the GOP and stood behind him instead.

Reed also thinks Dem strategists have misinterpreted the effect of support for gun control in the 2000 general election:

The current political calculus is that guns cost Gore the 2000 election by denying him West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee. This argument might be more convincing if Gore hadn't essentially carried the gun-mad state of Florida. In some states, the gun issue made it more difficult for Gore to bridge the cultural divide but hardly caused it. Four years ago, Gore and Clinton carried those same states with the same position on guns and the memory of the assault-weapons ban much fresher in voters' minds.

There's more to discuss about Reed's article, and his argument ought to generate some buzz in Democratic circles. After all, lives are very much at stake here, and Democratic inaction in response to the Virginia Tech massacre would compound the tragedy and reflect poorly on our leadership.

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001678.php

[Captain Hilts]

1. It's about handguns, not rifles. nt

[w4rma]

2. Is there any issue where the DLC doesn't support more control over regular Americans? (nt)

[wyldwolf]

3. Interesting you take this stance because the statement is from the DLC

You did not acknowledge or attempt to rebut any of the points in the piece.

[w4rma]

4. I don't support tougher gun laws except small tweaks to make current law work better.

Gun control means that only the wealthy and those with connections to the black market can have access to guns.

[Clark2008]

7. I find it even more interesting since they're supporting a

former DLCer for president.

:wtf:

[aikoaiko]

5. Keeping guns from criminals is good - keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding folks

is political suicide.

Reed: The current political calculus is that guns cost Gore the 2000 election by denying him West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee. This argument might be more convincing if Gore hadn't essentially carried the gun-mad state of Florida.

ME: Gore might have actually had enough of a victory margin that ballot box stuffing/tamepring might not have been a factor if he had a better (more pro-gun) position.

Reed: The Brady Bill and the clip ban passed because the most influential gun owners in America—police officers and sheriffs—were tired of being outgunned by drug lords, madmen, and thugs.

ME: But even with the AWB in place, police still needed to upgrade their own weapons. The ban only made things more difficult for the good folks. The AWB was useless.

Reed: In some states, the gun issue made it more difficult for Gore to bridge the cultural divide but hardly caused it. Four years ago, Gore and Clinton carried those same states with the same position on guns and the memory of the assault-weapons ban much fresher in voters' minds.

ME: The ban started in Sept of 1994, and the by the time of the 1996 election the AWB was still new and yes gun owners were mad, but their resentment grew as 10 magazines went as high as 100 dollars. Preban rifles started increasing in price and picked up pace as the ban on. The AWB retired just 2.5 years ago, and gun owners are hypersentive to the issue now. Just look at what happened to Jim Zumbo, a TV-article gun enthusiast and hunter, who spoke badly about so called "assault weapons".

Reed is correct that law abiding gun owners on the left and right want to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable, but not at the expense of reducing their access weapons for self-defense.

Edited to add: I'm a Georgia Democrat. Call me bubba if you like.

[SaveElmer]

6. Another example where we have allowed the right wing to frame the debate...

Abortion as well...

The DLC has some very good ideas on how to reframe these debates, to allow Democrats to reintroduce ourselves on some of these issues, absent the divisive rhetoric and the pre-conceived notions folks currently have about us based on right wing framing!!!

Bill Clinton understood this better than anyone!!!

[benEzra]

11. The DLC has been trying the "reframing" bull crap since the early '90s.

It bombed.

The problem is, when it boils down to actual legislation rather than canned talking points, it becomes impossible to carry on the lie. You can't tell people you don't want to take their guns, when you simultaneously cosponsor legislation to outlaw the most popular civilian target rifles in America.

More at length here: Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[mtnsnake]

8. Ban handguns, period.

The second amendment wouldn't have to be touched to do it, either.

Yeah it would take time for the handguns to disappear from the hands of the bad guys, too, but eventually it would happen if an all-out ban on handguns was made law. There are no practical reasons for people to own handguns unless you happen to be an officer of the law.

Any citizens who are still petrified they might get hurt because they don't have their own personal handgun could either purchase themselves a rifle to protect themselves from the boogyman with, or they could find themselves some remote barren corner of the world on another continent where they could all huddle together in collective fear and leave the rest of us the fuck alone to live out our lives in peace.

[aikoaiko]

9. Never going to happen.

Too many Democrats carry their own handguns on their person, in their purses, and in their cars, or leave it in the night table draw or in a small lock box.

Gun bans may soon be declared unconstitutional. Parker v DC is being appealed but if it stands, the DC handgun ban is going away.

From the summary of the decision:

[benEzra]

10. That's the same thing the DLC said in 1994, and 2000, and 2004.

Talk up hunting, fight to ban nonhunting guns, and you'll win the gun vote.

How'd it do? It BOMBED. Cost the whole damn trifecta, in fact, and the '00 election. (BTW, the comment about Florida makes no sense; does he think Florida would have been close enough for a recount had Gore not been hurt badly in that state by the gun issue?)

I can't believe the DLC is STILL pushing this crap, as if banning rifles with handgrips that stick out and post-1861 magazine capacities were the most important issue facing this country.

This article is merely symptomatic of the DLC's obsession with pushing new gun bans, a hobby horse they've been riding since the early '90s. Enough, already. Leave it to the states.

-------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMHO)