Where's the Debate Over Gun Control?

Liliana Segura February 22, 2008.

As the Democratic party becomes increasingly pro-gun, not even campus bloodshed grabs the candidates' attention.

Post Tools

The campus shooting at Northern Illinois University may be old news by now, but forgive me for thinking it might have presented an opportunity at last night's debate for someone to ask Hillary or Obama about gun control. Can you remember the last time either candidate talked about it? The last time any Democratic presidential contender did? Thinking "Dems" and "guns" leaves me with images of John Kerry in a hunting outfit. Embarrassing.

Gun control used to be one of those bread and butter issues for Democrats, but recent years have seen the party's rapid evolution towards staunch protectors of the 2nd Amendement. When the Clinton-era assault weapons ban passed expired three years back, few in Congress leaped to renew it. The results have been deadly: As the Brady Campaign's Paul Helmke points out: "One thing the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shooters had in common was that they both used high capacity ammunition magazines that would have been prohibited under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004."

Of course, easing up on gun control has been critical to the Dems courting voters in Western and Southwestern swing states; the more Democratic candidates have traded gun bans for wishy-washy pro-regulation positions, the more the NRA has rewarded them, upping their political contributions to the Dems. ''Certainly, we support more Republicans than Democrats," a public affairs director told the Boston Globe in 2005, "but we've seen in the last few years an increasing number of Democrats actively seeking the NRA endorsement and actually winning it."

As Salon reported following the Virginia Tech massacre last spring:

Today, a substantial portion of the party's new standard-bearers are pro-gun, or at least anti-gun control. Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who now heads the Democratic National Committee and is the favorite of the new party power base emerging from the Internet, has long been an opponent of gun control. So has Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., the man whose squeaker victory in November gave Democrats control of the Senate and who was selected to give the party's response to President Bush's State of the Union address this year. Last month, one of Webb's aides was arrested on his way in to a Senate building with one of Webb's guns in his possession. Webb responded with a spirited defense of his right and need to bear arms. Even Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the new Senate majority leader, is pro-gun.

So where do Clinton and Obama fall on gun control?

It's hard to say, they've said so little about it. As a Boston Globe editorial by Derrick K. Jackson pointed out this week:

Clinton has nothing about gun control on her website. The only reference to guns on Obama's is his plan for sportsmen, which includes "Protecting Gun Rights." That section says, "As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."

Not too promising.

Nor is it particularly surprising, given the Dems' deliberate shift in their gun control stance. But as candidates who promise "change" and "solutions," it's still disappointing. The Democrats may be playing it politically safe by keeping silent -- or pandering to the right -- on this life-or-death issue. But tell that to the families who are routinely affected by gun violence, whether in freak campus shootings or on city streets.

"As Clinton talks realism and Obama talks common sense," Jackson writes, "the senseless killings continue, aided tremendously by the American access to guns."

At the very least, it's an issue that's ripe for debate.

When Theory and Reality Clash on Gun Control

Leonard Pitts, a columnist from the Miami Herald, wrote a piece, "When theory and reality clash on gun control, put money on the latter".

In his column Pitts comes down on the right (read rational) side of the debate, but completely misfires in his analysis of the debate over gun control. Pitts makes the continued and flawed argument that because there is a debate over guns, both sides must be extremist and therefore wrong in their positions.

The problem with this [gun control] debate is that it has always been defined by its most extreme voices, its most uncompromising, ideologically pure voices.

But what if gun control advocates got over the idea that getting the right ruling from the right court would magically make guns disappear? And what if gun advocates got over the notion that every attempt at firearms regulation is a step toward totalitarianism? Where might this debate go then?...........

It's called compromise and no, it would hardly mollify ideological purists. It would not make guns disappear, nor acknowledge an individual right to bazooka ownership. What it would do, though, is recognize that ideological purity has its limits.

We see this flawed notion time and again. We, gun violence prevention advocates, do not and have never sought "banning" all firearms, especially hunting rifles, or completely disarming the populace. It's an entirely implausible suggestion.

On the contrary, we acknowledge that there are two equally powerful traditions in American history: a strong tradition of gun control that parallels a long tradition of gun ownership that is not at odds with each other. Having said that, with nearly 30,000 gun deaths each year and an estimated 270 million guns in circulation, we believe we are a country in crisis in need of solutions to address this devastating problem.

Although the gun lobby's propaganda likes to say so, we are not "anti-gun." What we do support is a comprehensive effort to regulate the gun industry and effective measures to adequately address the gun violence crisis in America. Although the gun lobby's propaganda likes to say so, we are not "anti-gun."

The truth is that virtually anyone, except those with a violent record, convicted of a felony, adjudicated with a mental health problem, or with a history of domestic abuse, can purchase however many weapons they desire.

But let's be clear: our proposals to reduce gun violence do not in anyway stop law-abiding Americans from purchasing or owning guns.

Yes, we support cities such as the District of Columbia and Chicago's handgun bans, but that is because those types and class of weapons are used disproportionately in violent crime, trafficked into urban areas, and used by gangs. Again, even a handgun ban does not prohibit owning a hunting rifle, for example, or any number of other types of guns.

Yes, we support regulating some of the most deadly and powerful military weapons available such as cop-killing, high-capacity assault weapons and powerful anti-armor .50 caliber sniper rifles. These weapons have no use in a civil society except to be used for a gun massacre or potential terrorist attack.

We also support sensible measures to reduce gun trafficking such as limiting gun owners to only purchasing one handgun per month -- that's 12 handguns a year if you counting; or 24 handguns per year if you're married. No gun law or proposal is keeping legal gun owners from purchasing or owning guns whatsoever.

We also think that if gun owners should have to pass a criminal background check if they purchase a firearm at a gun store or a federally licensed dealer, then why shouldn't gun owners be held to the same standard if they buy a weapon at a gun show or in the unregulated "secondary market"? The "secondary market" is a major reason why guns fall into the wrong hands.

Are these positions really that extreme?

We respect that Mr. Pitts is writing about gun control in his column and that he is on the right side of the issue.

But frankly, it's quite galling when columnists don't take the time to do their basic research and setup these false polarities on the gun control debate and wind up taking up our exact position to somehow rise above the fray.

We, gun violence prevention advocates, are hardly the flip side of the coin compared to the truly extremist gun lobby that opposes any and every attempt to save lives.

The gun lobby even opposes trigger locks -- trigger locks! -- to protect kids from accidental shootings.

The gun lobby's "no compromise" attitude extends to their agenda to allow air travelers to bring guns onto airplanes, allow our teachers to teach with a handgun on their hips, and even allow college students to carry deadly handguns on campus.

So who are the real "extremists"? That's the real question that needs to be address.

This false and ridiculous binary that both sides are wrong is Pitts' own war with reality.

More: Guns

Cheney Opposes D.C. Gun Ban

Vice President Cheney Joins Congress In Opposing D.C. Gun Ban, And Opposes Bush Administration’s Own Solicitor General















For those just catching up...



the Bush administration's own Solicitor General, Paul D. Clement, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court just hours before the deadline, asserting that the D.C. Appellate Court used the "wrong standard when it struck down the District's ban on private handgun ownership, and it urged the Supreme Court to return the case to the lower court for review", according to the Washington Post on Jan. 20th.

We said in response to the Post's story on Jan. 20th:

Gun proponents are livid and believe that the Bush administration just sold them out. But the truth is that if the Supreme Court upholds the Appellate Court's decision and takes away the D.C. handgun ban, then the Justice Department would be overloaded from every gun nut seeking to overturn every conviction relating to guns and challenge every gun law on the books.

But now we see that the Bush administration is fighting an internal war led by.... you guessed it, Dick Cheney!

An article from the Washington Post on Feb. 9th stated:

Vice President Cheney signed on to a brief filed by a majority of Congress yesterday that urged the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling that the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, breaking with his own administration's official position.

Cheney joined 55 senators and 250 House members in asking the court to find that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and to uphold a lower court's ruling that the D.C. ban violates that right. That position is at odds with the one put forward by the administration, which angered gun rights advocates when it suggested that the justices return the case to lower courts for further review.

In order to make his dramatic break with the administration, Cheney invoked his rarely used status as part of Congress, joining the brief as "President of the United States Senate, Richard B. Cheney." It is a position he has used at times to make the point that he is sometimes part of the legislative branch and sometimes part of the executive.

"That is one of his titles," Cheney press secretary Megan Mitchell said when asked whether it was significant that he had joined the brief in that capacity rather than as vice president.

The position puts Cheney at odds with a brief filed by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who represents the government and the Bush administration before the Supreme Court. Clement said that the court should recognize the individual right but that the lower court's ruling was so broad it could endanger federal gun-control measures, such as a ban on possession of new machine guns.

Clement urged the court to send the D.C. law, the strictest in the nation, back to lower courts for further review.

It's unclear why the Vice President is subverting his own President over the D.C. handgun ban case before the Supreme Court. Considering the appalling level of support and respect the American people have for the Bush administration, it's possible that Cheney is trying to "make nice" with his diminishing right-wing base and trying to play both sides.

It could also be that (Darth) Cheney is as conniving as people believe and the Vice President sincerely believes that even a ban on owning machine guns violates the Second Amendment.

Mind you, this is the same Dick Cheney that believes we're fighting a "war against terror". Apparently allowing widespread ownership of fully automatic machine guns -- a military weapon designed to slaughter other human beings -- doesn't fit into our national and homeland security strategy since the extremists in the gun lobby think there is "no" connection between guns and terrorism.

The Post continued:

Clement's brief said that was dubious but also said the appeals court was wrong to rule that just because handguns are "arms" as defined by the Second Amendment, government cannot ban them.

"If adopted by this court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns."

This is what happens when radical ideologues such as Dick Cheney use their power not in the interest of protecting the American people, but instead to advance the extremist agenda of the gun lobby.

But of course, this issue extends beyond the craziness of the Vice President. The fact of the matter is Cheney joined 55 senators and 250 House members in the brief to the Supreme Court. What's clear is that the gun lobby has nearly a total monopoly on firearm policy in the United States government.

The D.C. handgun ban case extends beyond the "individual versus collective right" debate over guns, and now appears to be about something more fundamental: whether "conservative pragmatists" will win over "right-wing and radical ideologues".

How sad that the debate about the Second Amendment has been reduced to the lowest common denominator while Americans continue to die in an epidemic of gun violence.

Yet Another Campus Shooting

The carnage from guns comes at us so quickly in the news, it is easy to become numbed by it.

The past few days, we have seen a boy kill his parents and two siblings with his father's gun, several women shot and killed in a clothing store in suburban Chicago, a man with a grievance killing several city council members in Missouri, and now word of a fatal shooting on a Louisiana campus.

And this is just a sampling of the shooting deaths in the recent past. Remember that approximately 11,500 people are shot to death each year as a result of homicide.

Meanwhile, three students in Baton Rouge are the latest victims of our "gun culture."

According to a February 9th UPI report,

Three students died at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge Friday, where police said a woman shot two other females then turned the gun on herself.

The bodies of the women, all students, were found in a classroom on the vocational-technical training campus, Baton Rouge Police Sgt. Don Kelly said.

"Unfortunately and sadly, we have three young women who are deceased," Kelly said. "(It appears) she shot two other women and turned the gun on herself."

Police began interviewing witnesses and others to try to understand why the shootings occurred, he said. Police said about 20 people were in the classroom where the shootings occurred.

Police received a call just before 8:30 a.m. and responded within minutes, Kelly said.

After particularly gruesome shootings, the media generally asks how such killings could have been prevented. Public officials ask what laws might have stopped them. Certainly, these are questions that need to be pursued.

But we also need to explore the pathology of our gun culture, because the unrelenting use of guns to kill people in America is a disease that is a cancer on our democracy.

We need to address why we continue, as a society, to glorify guns as if they are sacred objects, and why our popular culture thrives on guns being used as a means for people to vent their grievances.

These are profound questions that are at the heart of the gun problem in American and the unrelenting toll that it has taken on lives needlessly lost.

More: Louisiana, Students

It's every daughter, it's every son
The people who meet on both sides of the gun

LOADED GUNS IN NATIONAL PARKS?

Josh Sugarman

As early as next week, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is expected to offer an amendment to S. 2483, the "National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Projects Authorization Act of 2007," that would stop the enforcement of park service regulations requiring gun owners to keep their guns unloaded and stored while visiting most areas of America's National Park System.

Under the Coburn Amendment, state law would supercede the current federal regulations. So, if you have a concealed carry license that's valid in the state(s) the national park you're visiting is located, go ahead, load up that handgun and carry it around your campsite, over to Old Faithful, back to the general store for a six-pack of beer, and then back to your tent. If state law allows you to hang an AK-47 off your truck's gun rack, and then march with the loaded assault rifle along a backwoods trail to say "hi" to the bird watchers and flower gazers, all the better.

Among the groups opposing the Coburn Amendment are: the National Parks Conservation Association; the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police; the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees; the Association of National Park Rangers; and, The Wilderness Society.

Eh, but what do they know?

Every injustice, every poison
Every deception touches every one

Gun Control Advocates Call Clinton a Hypocrite

Jake Tapper ABC News

February 05, 2008 8:19 AM

Yesterday we took a look at Sen. Barack Obama's pro-hunter preaching in Idaho, wondering how it fit with a 1996 questionnaire in which he supported banning all handguns. Sen. Hillary Clinton implied Obama was a flip-flopper. (Read more HERE.)

This aroused the ire of some gun control advocates, who pointed out that even if one considers this an Obama flip-flop (and Obama says that questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer), Clinton has made a much more dramatic flip.

In an email to me, Andy Pelosi of Gun Free Kids, writes, "quite frankly, there are many gun control advocates that find it distasteful that Clinton appears to be running to the right of Obama on guns."

Running for the Senate in 2000, Clinton appeared before newspaper publishers in May of that year to say that gun control was part of the raison d'etre for her Senate campaign.

"We have to do more to stand up to those who refuse to believe the reality that guns do kill and that common-sense gun measures can make a difference," she said to the Newspaper Association of America's annual convention in New York. "I believe we need a comprehensive plan to stop gun violence, and it is one of the reasons I am running for the Senate."

Part of this, she said, was a national gun registry.

"We license drivers before they get behind the wheel to make sure they can drive safely," she said. "We register cars to make sure someone is responsible for every vehicle on the road. But we don't do the same for deadly weapons."

But last month she backed off this proposal.

At a Democratic debate in Nevada she said something different.

She said she was against "illegal guns," she said she wanted to get guns "out of the hands of young people," she called for a registry of "felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc" and "we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban."

These are generally the steps supported by the Republican presidential candidates as well. Which is fine - but it's quite different from how she sounded in 2000, when she was calling for far more liberal gun control measures.

"You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms," Clinton said at the Nevada debate, "but I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."

Inquired Tim Russert, "But you've backed off a national licensing registration plan?"

"Yes," Clinton said.

Bryan Miller, Executive Director of Ceasefire NJ , writes that "Clinton"s attack (on Obama on guns) is an obvious effort to frighten some with the false specter of gun confiscation under an Obama presidency, a prospect that is clearly not in the cards in this country, whoever is in office."

He goes on: "Clinton's attack is highly ironic, as well, both because she has changed positions on guns even more rapidly than Obama..." He says "there's more than a bit of the pot calling the kettle in Clinton's carefully parsed, but transparent and toxic attack. So, not only is Clinton's arithmetic incorrect as to Obama's so-called 'rapidly changes position,' but her own stated stance on gun regulation has both changed dramatically and done so in a much shorter time frame. No hypocrisy there, right?"

Somebody's daughter, somebody's son
There's somebody's brother on both sides of the gun
There's something so wrong that must be undone
When someone is hurt and means to hurt someone

Every injustice, every poison
Every deception touches every one

It's a sad story like so many I know
Through the cracks of the system they let the man go
He devastated my family, he widowed a wife
A thousand miles away, he touched my life

Every injustice, every poison
Every deception touches everyone
It's every daughter, it's every son
The people who meet on both sides of the gun

Somebody's daughter, somebody's son
There's somebody's brother on both sides of the gun
There's something so wrong that must be undone
We can all make a difference one by one

Every oppression every denial
Every corruption connects every one

I can't believe God would ever approve
Of teaching so many to hate and exclude
We put so much energy into power and greed
Dismissing the things that we really need
And moving so fast we miss so much
We should remember our conscience and get back in touch
If we could focus our power on this one thing
Maybe some of this madness might stop happening

Every injustice, every poison
Every lie touches everyone
Every brother, it's every one
The people who meet on both sides of the gun

Every religion that teaches our children
We can wait until the next life to stand accountable

Every action every crime
Every time - we're all responsible ...on both sides

Every sister, every brother
Take care of each other ...on both sides

Hey Mother,Hey Father
Reach out to your children ...on both sides

Every injustice every poison
Every deception connects all of us

Every corruption, every denial
Every oppression touches all of us

Every rejection , every hate crime
Every cry touches all of us

Every outrage every bias
Every lie touches all of us

Every kindness, every compassion
Every miracle connects all of us

Every promise, every mercy
Every helping hand touches all of us

In every city, in every country
Every connection touches all of us ...on both sides

Every brother, every sister
Every life is indispensible ...on both sides

Every sister, every brother
Take care of each other ...on both sides

Every father, every mother
Let's all get together ...on both sides

Every brother, every sister
Every life ...on both sides