Despite Large Majorities, Democrats Are Chicken on Gun Control

[marmar]

from the American Prospect, via AlterNet:


Despite Large Majorities, Democrats Are Chicken on Gun Control

By Drew Westen, The American Prospect. Posted June 25, 2007.



When it comes to gun control, Democrats fall silent. As with many hot-button social issues, they can't figure out how to reach people's emotions. Here's how they can regain their moral compass -- and their power of speech.

The following is excerpted from Drew Westen's "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation" (Perseus, 2007). It first appeared in the American Prospect.

On April 16, Seung-Hui Cho, a senior at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia, carried two semiautomatic pistols onto campus and killed 32 people. It was the deadliest shooting in modern American history.

The following week, a nation listened in horror as witnesses recounted stories of how they had barricaded desks against their classroom doors to keep the psychotic young man from entering, only to hear him spend a round of ammo, drop the spent clip, and reload in seconds.

Democratic leaders offered the requisite condolences. But that's all they offered. They didn't mention that the Republican Congress had let the Brady Act, which banned the sale of semiautomatic weapons, sunset in 2004. They didn't mention that in the decade or so after the passage of that act, 100,000 felons lost their right to bear arms, but not a single hunter lost that right. Instead, the Democrats ran for political cover, waiting for the smoke to clear.

This wasn't the first time Democrats scattered when threatened with Republican gunshots. They were silent as the Beltway sniper terrorized our nation's capital a month before the midterm elections of 2002. And they have been silent or defensive on virtually every "wedge" issue that has divided our nation for much of the last 30 years. When the Republicans tried to play the hate card again in 2006, this time under the cover of immigration reform, Democrats scrambled to pull together a "policy" on immigration, instead of simply asking, "What's the matter, gays aren't working for you anymore?"

So how did we find ourselves where we are today, with an electorate that has finally figured out that the once larger-than-life Wizard of Terror was nothing but a projection on a screen -- and an opposition party that can't seem to find its heart, its brain, or its courage, and instead wonders what's the matter with Kansas?

And most importantly, how do we find our way back home? ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/rights/55094/

[Frogger]

1. I'm sorry to disagree.

One of the reasons that Democrats were able to regain the majority is that they abandoned a policy that the American people didn't want. Not the only reason, sure, but a big one.

Gun control is a looser for Democrats. It should never be revived, IMHO.

[Ben Masel]

2. Westen wants the Republicans to hold

their slim majority in the Wisconsin Assembly.

[filterfish]

3. Agree, this article is crap

Drew Westen might be a smart, well-meaning guy but gun control is a loser and should be avoided during national elections. I like the idea of Jon Tester holding a rifle over his shoulder saying, "it's time we end this misadventure in Iraq."

[Briar]

4. This is because

Americans are crazy about guns.

[benEzra]

5. Half of gun owners are Dems and indies, and this guy can stay the hell out of my gun safe.

Half of gun owners are Dems and indies, and this guy can stay the hell out of my gun safe. Having said that, he might be less hysterical if he were a bit more informed.

the Brady Act, which banned the sale of semiautomatic weapons

The Brady Act was a waiting period and optional background check on the purchase of handguns, that was replaced by a mandatory point-of-sale background check on all firearms in the late '90s. President Clinton signed that into law.

The Feinstein law of 1994-2004 (the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch) is what he's confusing with the Brady Act. But it did NOT "ban the sale of semiautomatic weapons"; it merely required minor cosmetic changes to some semiautomatic weapons, and raised prices on full-capacity pistol magazines (but not rifle mags). I own a ban-era civilian AK-47, made in 2002 and purchased in 2003. As required by the Feinstein law, it has a smooth muzzle crown and the little lug on the bottom of the gas block is ground off.

They didn't mention that in the decade or so after the passage of that act, 100,000 felons lost their right to bear arms, but not a single hunter lost that right.

The right of felons to bear arms was revoked by the Gun Control Act of 1968, dude. And only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter, so spare me the Bradyite "gun ownership is for hunting" line.

This wasn't the first time Democrats scattered when threatened with Republican gunshots. They were silent as the Beltway sniper terrorized our nation's capital a month before the midterm elections of 2002.

And, pray tell, what sort of gun ban would have affected those losers? Every shot they made was within the capability of an 18th-century flintlock (the furthest shot was ~88 yards), and they fired one shot every couple of days (a flintlock can fire two or three times a minute). You want to ban flintlocks now?

Dropping the ban-more-guns thing was a big part of winning back Congress in 2006, and a number of governorships as well. The "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme is dying; let it stay the hell DEAD, dude.


----------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in 2004, largely vindicated in 2006, IMO)