Gun control is expected to become a hot topic for the US presidential election as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on a controversial handgun ban in the nation's capital.Why not heat it up even more? The leading Democrat presidential candidates ought to be questioned on what they think the outcome of Heller should be, and their answer--or refusal to give an unequivocal one, ought to be publicized to "sportsmen".
I wouldn't expect this to cause much change within the GOP--even Rudy has made statements in support of Heller. This would be particularly damaging to the Dems, as they've been making noises recently to try and camouflage their tyrannical ambitions in re guns. This would be a way to approach the Democrat "sportsman" with proof that their candidate is so extreme they don't believe in a right to own guns at all--even at home.
It probably wouldn't make that big of a difference, but in politics, every percentage point counts toward tipping the scale, and who knows what damage could be engineered by loudly pointing out to duck hunters how their candidate is ducking an issue close to their hearts? Besides which, it would really be comical watching Paul Helmke and Peter Hamm try to spin it after their "judicial activism" tirades.
Bottom line: if it can hurt Hillary and Obama, why not?
1 comment:
David:
I wholly agree....DC v. Heller will put the 2A back on our "radar" and pres candidates must be forced to make their positions clear. I don't think that ignoring or evading the issue will suffice (this time).
Regarding the BBC article, however, I have a comment criticizing the DC Metro Police Department's commander Michael Anzallo, regarding his statement: "The problem is easy access to firearms."
People like Anzallo have extremely short memories, especially when it’s convenient to them. Regarding this “new problem” of “easy access to firearms”...
See the following passage from: Polsby, Daniel D. and Don B. Kates. 1997. Of Holocausts and Gun Control. Washington University Law Quarterly 75 (3): 1237-75. http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html
Undeniably, the murder rate in this country (both perpetration and victimization) increased rapidly among teenagers, especially among minorities, from 1983 to 1992. However, firearms are not “more accessible” to today’s adolescents than they were to yesterday’s. In fact, until 1968 anyone in this country could readily mail-order Army surplus .45 automatic pistols, German Lugers, high-powered semi-automatic rifles, or even trench mortars and bazookas, along with ammunition for all. Munitions of all sorts other than fully automatic weapons (which have been banned since the mid-1930s) could be purchased anonymously by anyone who would check a box on a mailing coupon that said “I am 21 years old or older.” Despite this laisser faire regime, in the twenty years following the end of World War II, America’s crime rates, including its murder rate, were much lower than today.
Also undeniably, this notion that “the problem is easy access to firearms” falls flat on it’s face.
Post a Comment