[Sniper[MI]]

Firearm Owners` Rights And Hunting (con.'t)

If one reads the candidates' public statements on the 2nd Amendment,
they certainly seem moderate:

Kerry: "I believe that the Constitution, our laws and our customs
protect law-abiding American citizens' right to own firearms…. I
believe that the right of gun ownership comes with responsibilities."

Howard Dean: "Law-abiding citizens should have the right to own
firearms for hunting and other legitimate purposes, subject to
reasonable restrictions related to gun safety."

Edwards: "I believe that the 2nd Amendment protects Americans' right
to own firearms for purposes like hunting and personal protection, and
that this right is subject to responsible limits like other rights."

The uniformity of views is striking, as are the "reasonable
restrictions" the major Democratic candidates support: banning
so-called semiautomatic assault weapons, regulating gun shows, opposing
restrictions on lawsuits against gun makers.

Given all this agreement, it is not surprising that last year
Democratic pollster Mark Penn produced surveys showing that if
Democrats didn't show "respect for the 2nd Amendment and support gun
safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for
Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the 2nd
Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes…. This is
something [Democrats] can run on and win on." Remember, Bill Clinton
and Democratic strategists are on the record as saying that too strong
a stand for gun control probably cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential
elections.

But is the conversion real? The policy gurus for the Democratic
presidential campaigns recently pitched their candidates at a
think-tank breakfast in Washington. Given their candidates' stated
support for the right of individuals to own guns, where do they draw
the line on reasonable restrictions? Where do they stand on, say, the
bans on handgun ownership in Chicago and the District of Columbia? Only
Joe Lieberman's representative answered the question. The now-former
Democratic candidate "would oppose an outright ban on handguns, and he
is not afraid to say so."

And the others? Dean's senior advisor, Maria Echaveste, refused to be
pinned down because that would be giving in to "wedge issue" politics
"as opposed to really talking about values that are fundamental to all
candidates and to the American people." Representatives for Kerry,
Edward and Clark would not respond.

The question was hardly theoretical. A couple of weeks ago, a U.S.
District Court judge, a Democratic appointee, ruled in a District of
Columbia case upholding the district's ban: "The 2nd Amendment does not
confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the
amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias."

Just last month, a man in Wilmette, Ill. — where there is also a
handgun ban — used a gun to stop a criminal breaking into his home
while his family slept. Police said that in wounding the perpetrator,
the homeowner used justifiable force and that the handgun met state
regulations for being registered and properly stored, but the man was
charged with violating Wilmette's ban. He had previously called 911 to
report a break-in at his home and had to wait more than 10 minutes for
police, but in the second case, with the criminal staring at him, he
didn't have the luxury of waiting that long again.

Supporting "reasonable restrictions" sounds moderate, but is an
ownership ban "reasonable"? And if so, what exactly does guaranteeing
an individual right really mean?

Polling may have convinced Democrats to change their rhetoric, but when
only one Democratic presidential candidate — one no longer running —
"would oppose an outright ban on handguns," their true goals must be as
extreme as ever.


http://www.tednugent.com/rights.shtml