what an interesting post! (0.00 / 0)

This series is really getting good.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:05:41 PM UTC

This may sound stupid, but... (4.00 / 10)

It seems that the most likely people to be going around and buying up the record levels of guns and ammo are people who already owned guns and are afraid that Obama will somehow come into their house and take all of their weapons.  Therefore, the percentage of gun-owning households may not actually increase that much, as the people buying most of the guns were probably gun owners to begin with.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:05:48 PM UTC

My Thoughts Exactly! (4.00 / 2)

Who armed themselves after Clinton won in 1992?  Same hardcore wingers who are arming up now.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:30:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very good message (4.00 / 2)

People should not buy guns.

I think it would be a mistake for Democrats to re-light the fire of gun control as an issue. I do not own guns, I think that guns cause much harm to society, but the second amendment is an issue that Republicans have raised a ton of money against Dems for decades.

We have a ton of progressive issues that need to be addressed before we try to return to this issue.

You note that the Republicans used guns as a successful wedge issue against us it is not time to push for controls yet.

Perhaps we could take the $200 million that is used on anti-marijuana ads and make gun safety ads.

---

by: randy80302 @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:06:13 PM UTC

well, some people should buy guns (4.00 / 7)

Hunters, for instance. Or people who enjoy riflery. Or people who live in very rural areas that the local police can't access in a reasonable amount of time, and a gun might be necessary for self-protection from people or wild animals. Or possibly people in neglected neighborhoods where police are indifferent or hostile and there are high rates of crime. Thoes people should buy guns.

And this is part of the thing about gun control: depending on local circumstances, different gun laws make sense. I think the Brady bill was a pretty good law, and it was popular when it passed. But beyond that, I'm not sure how much more role the federal government ought to have in the issue, so I'm not sure how much sense it would make for national Dems to keep talking about it.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:15:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (4.00 / 1)

And Obama gets this.  The few comments I've heard him make on guns totally grasped the geographic divide.  Not that the NRA gives a crap or anything.

And that's the other thing--even though national Democrats have completely dropped guns from the discourse, the NRA and their membership is still going apeshit with paranoia at the very notion of a Democratic President.  It doesn't matter what Democrats do or say, their reaction will always be the same.

---

by: TValley @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:47:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shutting down the gray market (4.00 / 2)

is a good place to start.

Most guns used in crimes are bought from licensed dealers who "lose" a disproportionate amount of paperwork. Yet the feds can't touch them. An excellent example is the store that supplied the DC sniper.

Why can't we target guys like that? Put the NRA and the Republicans on the defensive and make them explain why they protect people who arm criminals?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:55:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gun Control (4.00 / 3)

I used to be solidly behind gun control.  I would have had no problem dropping the 2nd amendment completely.

Then Bush came along.  I always assumed the 2nd amendment was obsolete and the balance of power it provided between the people and the government was no longer an issue.  Bush's response to 9/11 terrified me and I had no idea how far he would take it.  I still think we were only one attack away from martial law.  Or at least would have been if there wasn't a worry about people being armed.

All this is separate from your number crunching, though.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:08:59 PM UTC

I share your fear of martial law... (4.00 / 6)

But the lesson we should learn from the last 30 years is that repressive governments are best overthrown by nonviolent action, not violent revolution. In countries like the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, South Africa, The Philippines, Indonesia, Iran, and Chile various forms of nonviolent action overthrew the repressive government without destroying the country and actually built up the civil structure. Few countries have had successful violent revolutions in the past 50 years: Cuba in 1959 and ??? Groups like the Basque Separatists in Spain, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Shining Path in Peru, and the Irish Republican Army have been completely unsuccessful. Even wars waged by major military powers (the U.S.) have been largely failures (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

And frankly, I'm not at all interested in taking on the U.S. Army armed their assault weapons and aerial drones -- the chances that I'll be able to win in a violent battle are very slim.

Our ideas of security, rebellion, and protection are decades out of date. In the world we now live in nonviolent action is much more effective than armed rebellion.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:38:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

All very good points (0.00 / 0)

All of this is true should the situation that martial law is actually declared come to pass. (Funny that it took a Hindi to prove that Jesus was right.)

However, I'm not so sure this true in terms of preventing someone like Bush from declaring martial law in the first place, whereas gun ownership might.  It has more to do with how he thinks then we think.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:54:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yet all the millions of guns (4.00 / 1)

in American hands did not stop the bloodless coup of 2000. Didn't stop the war, or the wireless wiretapping, or the torture.

If anything, the Bush regime proved just how useless guns are as a defense of civil liberty.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:57:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

correlation is not causation (4.00 / 2)

This decline set the stage, long-term, for an overall decline in gun households as a percentage of the electorate, which in turn allowed for long-term Democratic electoral gains... it is entirely possible that future elections will see an increase in household gun ownership, thus benefiting Republicans at the ballot box.

The drop in gun ownership and Dem electoral gains could be totally independent trends. Or the Dem gains could have led to a drop in gun ownership. And in the future, an increase in gun ownership might correlate with more Dem gains. Or Republican gains might cause an increase in gun ownership. Or there might be no correlation at all between gun ownership and voting in the future.

These are just points of logic. But I wouldn't even bring it up except that the statement that declines in gun ownership led to Democratic gains strikes me as implausible from the perspective of common sense. If someone moves out of a house with guns, or gets rid of their guns, that causes them to become more Democratic? Really? I could imagine there might be a relevant correlation - as the country grows more liberal and urban, people both become less likely to own guns and more likely to vote Democratic. But the idea that drops in gun ownership "allowed for long-term Democratic electoral gains" seems very unlikely.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:09:24 PM UTC

this is poor analysis... (0.00 / 0)

Chris - I think this is poor analysis.  It's just as likely that fewer people buy guns now for two reasons:

1. Less crime (crime went down in the 1990s)
2. Fewer people live in rural areas

These reasons have nothing to do with Democrats jettisoning gun control as a campaign issue.  

However, these stats suggest that maybe gun control isn't a loser issue for Dems either.  We are certainly more likely to see some sensible regulations as fewer people are gun owners.  

---

by: econlibVA @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:12:18 PM UTC

We didn't lose in 1994 'cos fo the assault weapons ban... (4.00 / 7)

That was Clinton's lame excuse... We lost in 1994 'cos nothing happened in health care, and Clinton went after core constituencies with welfare reform and NAFTA.  There was no reason for the Democratic base to come out...

We didn't lose in 2000 'cos of the NRA... we lost 'cos Gore ran a terrible campaign...

We didn't gain anything by dropping gun control of the platform, since the NRA and their sister organizations still claimed that Obama and Kerry would have personally come into their houses, and beat down their children in order to take their guns... and the gun nuts believed that to be true....

So, yes, we gained nothing...

What did we lose?  Well, the gun control movement, which had a strong life in the 90's withered and died completely without the Democratic institutional support...  When's the last time you heard about the "Concerned Mothers for America"?  Do they even exist anymore?

The result?  The millennial generation that came of age under Bush is pro economically interventionist government, pro national health care, pro gay marriage, pro education funding, pro marijuana legalization, pro everything liberal EXCEPT for gun control.  Their feelings on the subject are similar to the NRA's, and stand squarely against their generally liberal mindset in almost everything else...

Our caucus is now split.  Whereas in the 90's at least 2/3rds of the caucus believed in reasonable gun control, that number is down to half, at best... With a split caucus, republicans all for "gun rights" and the independent vote split, gun control legislation faces a mere 25-33% support of the populace as opposed to nearly 50% support a decade ago.

Gun control advocacy is dead as Marley's ghost... and it's going to take a whole lot to revive it.  The snub by the democratic platform smothered the movement, and it will take generations to recover, if ever...

If you compare what happened to the gun control movement versus the gay rights movement, the lesson is clear.  In the face of insurmountable odds, keep fighting.  All seemed lost for gay marriage a few years back, and look what has happened recently.  The odds seemed lost for gun control, too... but, the people fighting for it gave up... who knows where we may have been had they kept up the fight... maybe not much more different than 10 years ago, but at least gun control advocacy wouldn't be in such a deep hole that it is in right now..

For the record, I'm not "for" gun control per se... I think it's ridiculous that we can't have reasonable registration and licensing for items that are inherently dangerous... but, I have no qualms about good citizens owning firearms, especially out in the country where such ownership may be necessary.... I also realize that our political fortunes out West are contingent on us dropping the issue entirely.  Considering that gun control is in a state of the living dead, there is no point trying to make a futile effort to revive the patient without a lot of outside, grassroots support.  Right now, there is none....

What I was trying to point out in this comment was support for Bower's thesis, as well as to emphasize the difference continued advocacy can make in the face if long odds...  Giving up is never an option... look what it did to the gun control movement...  Look what forging ahead and continued fighting did for gay marriage...

A lesson learned to be sure!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:22:08 PM UTC

The 1994 Point Is Spot On (4.00 / 6)

It's been well documented that the Dems lost in 1994 because of a sharp decline in their base from 1992 and 1990.  They finally got control of the White House after 12 years, and didn't do diddley.

As for the GOP, they did a very good job of reaching out to disaffected Perot voters (I've written about this before, referencing the excellent book on the subject, Three's A Crowd), which basically took advantage of Clinton's adopting Bush's position on NAFTA.

Guns have nothing to do with it, except as perhaps to add some cultural resonance and raise some money.  But they got much more money elsewere.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:41:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

we did not lose in 2000 (4.00 / 6)

Gore won.

He was severely hobbled by Clinton's scandals, was outspent by 55%, absolutely savaged by the media, and still pulled it off. His opponent was a prince of one of the wealthiest and most powerful political dynasties in America, with deep ties to Wall Street, oil, and defense, yet able to play a genial cowboy and get out the fundamentalist vote like no candidate before him. And yet this ultimate insider with every advantage of money, favorable press, and massive establishment/grassroots support had to resort to open theft to gain the presidency.

Stop perpetuating the dual myths that Bush was a duly elected president and that Gore ran a terrible campaign. Gore won, and that should be enough.

The lesson to take from 2000 is that the deck is heavily stacked, and the wealthy and powerful forces that really control the country will not let anyone near the presidency who will not play ball.

---

by: limpidglass @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:53:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

right (4.00 / 4)

It's tangential to this post, but you're totally right. If some lady in Palm Beach County had chosen a different ballot design, everyone would talk about what a lousy campaign Bush ran in 2000, and how Gore's focus on Florida and choice of Lieberman as running mate were brilliant maneuvers.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:09:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, perhaps.... (0.00 / 0)

....but I think there is something to be said for not having guns be a top issue. Democratic silence has removed this as a major issue and taken away a major motivating factor in voting and contributing $$$$ for some.

Also, I think the main reason why the precentage of gun households has declined is because the voting pool is larger. The number of gun owners is relatively stagnant, but the number of voters in general has risen, thus making the percentage decline.

---

by: lams712 @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:25:40 PM UTC

There's Not A Lot Of Evidence It Ever WAS A Top Issue (4.00 / 2)

I've looked at polling data on this before, and the evidence seems to be that it's not a major issue at all.

Online, you often hear folks say stuff like, "I agree with the Democrats all down the line, except for guns, and that's why I can't vote for them.  Plenty of other folks feel the same way, and that's why the Dems keep losing."  But polling data shows that folks who really feel that way are scarce as hen's teeth.

It's much more sensible to regard it as a part of a larger cultural narrative, and as such, it really doesn't matter whether the Dems talk about it or not, so long as the Republicans do.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:47:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Local (4.00 / 1)

Guns have been a big issue in a few states.  In 2000 the NRA spent a lot of money and a lot of effort in two states, Ohio and West Virginia.  In 1968, gums dealt a fatal political blow to Joe Clark in Pennsylvania.  No Democratic was elected to a full US Senate term in PA until Bob Casey 38 years later.

Most Presidential elections are not close.  Only three losing Presidential candidates ever received 250 or more electoral votes: Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. The elections of 2000 and 2004 were anomalies.  In that situation, the power of small groups with strong local voting power was greatly magnified.  Not just guns but other groups.

Btw, a small number of votes in New Hampshire or Iowa would have changed the 2000 result without taking on the Bush maschine in Florida.  Honest instructions in the black areas of Duval County would have prevented more than enough overvotes rather than instructing those voters to cast two votes for President.  Gore had limited resources and most of his late decisions were good.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 22:19:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What more is there to control? (4.00 / 3)

What kind of further gun control do you want to push for? Seems to me like it fizzled out as an issue in part because strict limits on the use and ownership of all kinds of guns were put in place at the federal and state level. Perhaps there is a hard-fought agreement on acceptable gun laws that varies greatly between states and communities. What's wrong with that? Or did you envision a fanatical crusade like that of MADD, where the never-ending struggle itself is all that matters, even long after all the strictest policy goals have been implemented across every community?

As for this progressive gun owner, I'm not interested in surrendering the whole of armed power to capitalists, corporate shareholders, landlords and the idle rich who generally use the "justice" system as their own private security force. A constructive conversation for progressive gun politics would thoroughly consider a widely inclusive, democratic, community-based police system (a well-regulated militia).

http://www.funnyordie.com/jame...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:44:04 PM UTC

Badly Misinformed (4.00 / 4)

What kind of further gun control do you want to push for? Seems to me like it fizzled out as an issue in part because strict limits on the use and ownership of all kinds of guns were put in place at the federal and state level.

There are almost no federal gun laws, notwithstanding all the NRA propaganda to the contrary.  The vast, vast majority are and always have been state and local.  And the vast majority of those have nothing to do with rifles.

Don't you find it a bit odd that you've got the National Rifle Association on one side, and Handgun Control on the other?

What it's about is not anything rational/empirical, otherwise you wouldn't have such a notorious fraud as John Lott as the point person on the "pro-gun" side.  Same as "welfare reform" with Charles Murray.

I'm not interested in surrendering the whole of armed power to capitalists, corporate shareholders, landlords and the idle rich who generally use the "justice" system as their own private security force.

Ah yes, just you and your AK-47 against the Texas oil barrons, and whatever Blackwater has renamed itself as by the time Armageddon swings round.  That's a plan!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:00:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if things ever got so bad in America (4.00 / 1)

that martial law was declared on a nationwide scale, I don't think it would be very easy for the government to maintain control over the country. Look at the trouble we're having in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Granted, the army wouldn't have the logistical problems of moving troops and materiel all the way overseas, nor the difficulties of interacting with a foreign culture.

But this is a big country. And the more harshly the government acts towards its citizens, the more support it loses (unlike a foreign war, where you can be as brutal to the opponent as you like and not lose much support at home).

Perhaps I'm being naive, and modern surveillance and weapons technology would make it possible for direct military control of the populace against its will. But I'm not seeing it.

If the American government is overthrown, I don't think it'll come through the military taking over, but through someone duly elected (or sort of duly elected, like Bush) who establishes a dictatorship with significant popular support.

---

by: limpidglass @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:29:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or Maybe (0.00 / 0)

It will just be a sports riot that gets out of hand.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 21:55:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

my money is actually on a vote-tampering scandal (0.00 / 0)

on American Idol.

There would be real riots then, for sure. Clashes in the streets between factions lining up for one Idol contestant over another that would leave dozens dead and hundreds injured.

It would tear America apart.

---

by: limpidglass @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 00:41:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Deserves a more serious discussion (4.00 / 1)

Ah yes, just you and your AK-47 against the Texas oil barrons, and whatever Blackwater has renamed itself as by the time Armageddon swings round.  That's a plan!

Paul, though I don't doubt that in the past you have debated people with that worldview, that ain't who you're talking to now.

There are almost no federal gun laws, notwithstanding all the NRA propaganda to the contrary. The vast, vast majority are and always have been state and local.

That's somewhat beside the point of the discussion heretofore. There are some federal gun laws, certainly more than there were up until the 1990s. And, obviously, most gun laws are state or local statutes. It seemed to me that we were debating overall Democratic political strategy on gun laws, encompassing local, state and national debates.

My point still stands that the country seems to have reached a hard-fought stalemate between regional factions on gun issues. They're heavily restricted in some areas, and relatively accepted in others. I frankly don't see much that we stand to gain by re-opening this battle, besides employing some single-issue activists on both sides.

Furthermore, I still think there is a valuable discussion at some time along the lines of my suggestion for "a widely inclusive, democratic, community-based police system" as a goal of the progressive Left. So no, not the solitary nuts holed up in bunkers to whom you alluded, but communities that police themselves responsibly and cooperatively. Contrast that vision with one that I think is too common on the Left, where the "dangerous bad knowledge" of security and defense responsibilities are shunned and quickly delegated in total to unelected police forces and security professionals, who serve a wealthy, powerful, repressive elite.

http://www.funnyordie.com/jame...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 22:04:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

state or federal, laws are laws (4.00 / 1)

Guns are not the problem.   Lots of people own guns, and they don't horde amunition or kill people.  

Gun violence is symptomatic of our culture and our policies.   We don't care how many people are poor or growing up without role models and good schools.  When people have no futures, they have no reason not to go to jail.   How they get there is just a pathway.  

---

by: dkmich @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:10:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shutting down the gray market. (0.00 / 0)

See above. The gun show loophole would also be good.

In our country today, anyone who wants a gun can have one. Criminals, terrorists, you name it.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 21:11:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not "guns" (4.00 / 5)

The Right has been able to frame this issue in a way that makes it very difficult for us to tackle. The issue is not "guns". We have to reframe this issue three ways:

1. Restricting handguns and assault weapons. Most people in this country think it is ok for people in rural areas to have hunting rifles and most people think is not ok for anyone to own a bazooka. So the issue is not "guns", it is which guns. Handguns and assault weapons have no reasonable use other than to threaten and kill humans. Just as we restrict personal ownership of bazookas, missiles, tanks, and jet fighters, it is not unreasonable to restrict handguns and assault weapons.

2. Restrictions, not bans. We restrict who can drink alcohol and who can drive a car. We certainly should be able to restrict who owns deadly weapons and how they must buy, sell, and store them. Letting anyone sell to anyone (including criminals and psychopaths) at a gun show is crazy.

3. Weapons manufacturers, not owners. Much of the money behind the NRA and the gun movement comes from the weapons manufacturers. These companies have a vested interest in selling to everyone they can, scaring the population as much as possible, and dumping tons of money into the hands of Right-wing politicians. It is in the interest of the manufacturers to sell guns to criminals who will rob and kill people since this then scares everyone else into buying a gun. And there is some evidence that the gun manufacturers have, at the least, been very loose in their restrictions on gun dealers who have been shown to continually sell to criminals.

If we can reframe the debate from "the government's going to take away your gun" to "the government is going to restrict the irresponsible gun manufacturers from selling unnecessary weapons of war to criminals, psychopaths, and irresponsible people", then it is a winnable issue for us. And, it would make the world a lot safer for most of us.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:01:06 PM UTC

You get it: (4.00 / 1)

"It is in the interest of the manufacturers to sell guns to criminals who will rob and kill people since this then scares everyone else into buying a gun. And there is some evidence that the gun manufacturers have, at the least, been very loose in their restrictions on gun dealers who have been shown to continually sell to criminals."

Arms dealers make their profits by selling to both sides. They are the real problem, and we should attack them as such.

Also at some point we need to ask our candidates to swear they will not take money from any organization which advocates the armed overthrow of the US government (hint hint, starts with an N and ends with an A?)

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 21:16:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Democrats should talk about gun safety (4.00 / 2)

because it is a very serious issue. Everyone should read the story of a gun.

---

by: AliceDem @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:10:04 PM UTC

Ahem... (4.00 / 7)

If we want people to vote for Democrats, we first need to get them to start living like Democrats.

So the 29% of us gun-owners who voted for Obama - and have, many of us - been Democrats, even more left-wing Democrats than you, Chris, must surrender our weapons before voting next time?

I'm perfectly fine with stricter gun-control laws than 99% of Republicans and probably 33% of Democrats. Strict and strictly enforced safety and training-before-owning laws, licensing and registration, limits on how many guns a person can buy in a set period, to give some examples.

But I have owned guns since I was 6 (yes, a kid's .410 shotgun) - both modern and antiques, pistols and long-guns. I'm careful, I don't brandish my weapons, I don't threaten my wife or the neighbors, and I have always taken care that no unauthorized person can gain access to them.

Yet you are telling me that if I don't give them up I'm no longer worthy of calling myself a Democrat?

Pfffft.

---

by: Meteor Blades @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:39:08 PM UTC

yes, that's what i am saying (4.00 / 2)

yep--that's it. I'm saying that anyone who owns a gun must surrender it before being allowed into the Democratic Party.

That is the position i am advocating here--give up your guns or else you are not worthy be calling yourself a Democrat.

That is precisely what I am writing here. Totally.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 05:18:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's generational. (4.00 / 1)

The gun nuts are primarily middle-aged (and older) suburban and rural white men. That's a group already in relative decline.

If you read their literature you will see how anxious they are about the fact that the younger generation just isn't taking to gun sports like they think they should. They worry about who will pick up the torch.

Personally I think it's because the younger generation, growing up in the wake of Columbine, has a more complex view of the issue.


Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:51:33 PM UTC

lack of free time (0.00 / 0)

has cut into hunting and fishing as hobbies for the next generation. A hunting or fishing outing takes all day or at least half a day. Kids now have sports or other activities on weekends, and families don't have the free time. So kids are not growing up to join the "hook and bullet crowd."

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 20:39:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't buy it. (0.00 / 0)

If today's kids did not have so much free time, Sony wouldn't be making millions (billions?) of dollars selling playstations. Shopping malls would not exist.

If anything, smaller family sizes and fewer farm chores means modern kids have more free time than their ancestors.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 23:08:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

gun control as political issue (4.00 / 1)

I live in Montana. No cantidate of any stripe could get elected to any office here if he supported gun control. Mike Mansfield was a member of the (almost) diety when he switched to support gun control, and still won the primary due to split opposition that shared the majority. He then won the general due to his years of service to his constituency on other issues, and the sparcely populated state loved the extra power inherent to the majority leader.... No such person exists today. It was a great relief to not defend this issue to rape-public-cans, but there is a better way now. I proclaim that I voted for Obama to protect my gun rights! Any who think the rape-public-cans would not ignore the second amendment as soon as it became inconvient to their agenda has to forget what the rape-public-cans (under Bush) did to the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, twelfth,...etc. When I said this to a phone solicitation by the NRA the caller was speechless, and eventually agreed with me that the rape-public-cans couldn't be trusted either....Bwahahahaha.

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:54:48 PM UTC

Rural (4.00 / 3)

Of course, no one in Montana should be for gun control in Montana.  Why can't someone say something like:

Guns are a way of life in Montana, posing no problem at all.  

Guns are a way of life in New York City.  There, they've got problems.

It seems like this position would simultaneously stroke the ego of Montanans while leaving up the possibility to support fellow law makers in other states.  Montanans should not try to stop city dwellers from figuring out what is best for themselves.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 20:46:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps there is another way to look at this issue (4.00 / 4)

The possibility I am about to suggest is supported by no evidence other than my own encounters working for Dems in rural Oregon (2nd CD and state races out of Douglas County).  Take it for what you will.

My suggestion is that perhaps framing the issue as "Are gun owners more likely to vote Dem if we drop aggressive control advocacy?" is too limited.  Some issues function as proxies for larger sets of concerns.  In my experience "Dems will take my guns" functioned as shorthand for a complex of concerns centered around "Dems don't understand us and they don't give a crap about us out here in the sticks."  There were many reasons and examples, but the gun issue sometimes functioned as the expressed vehicle for outrage.

Anecdotally, in rural Oregon where I was working, non-owners were moved by appeals on behalf of guns.  Neighbors and relatives may have been the gun owners, but "we" felt ignored and denigrated by the hipsters in Portland and Eugene.  (I am from Eugene along with much of my family).  

It went like this: "They are oblivious to 'our' economic struggles", "they openly mock 'our' culture and traditions", "they move into 'our' communities and upset the balance of power and push an alien agenda".  There was often a frightening level of xenophobia and paranoia in some of these perspectives, but they were no less real for that fact.

The gun issue functioned more to crystallize inchoate fears than as a rational expression of fear about looming disarmament.  Non-gun owners were pushed from moving left because of how the gun issue was used by GOPers selling snake oil and generating a general siege mentality.  To be a Dem candidate in favor of gun control risked political excommunication from your community.  There were some single issue gun owners who might otherwise have voted Dem but I think this was a smaller group than was often believed.  But to hear Blumenauer, or worse, Schumer, wax on about the imminent existential threat posed by lax gun control just gave force to the "they are not us" narrative, which was carried on many streams, only the most visible of which the gun issue per se.

I would hesitate to carry this argument too far, especially given the highly anecdotal nature of my non-evidence.  But I do agree (shudders) with the framing politics folks that issues do not only function in terms of rational cost-benefit or risk-reward calculations but for many on some other, much more emotional level.

There are also some arguments on rational policy grounds to not making guns a signature issue or priority, both in terms of the efficacy of control and the small effect in relation to demographic changes, but that is not my point here.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?

---

by: T. Jacobsen @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 20:14:21 PM UTC

I think you are right (4.00 / 1)

becaused I think guns are a perfect proxy for what Digby so accurately called "the crisis of anxious masculinity."

And if this is the root of the problem, then a new New Deal really is the answer. What people really need are jobs, and dignity. The hope of a better life for their children. The Democratic Party delivered on that in the past and we can do it again.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 21:21:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Some issues function as proxies for larger sets of concerns" (4.00 / 1)

I have long thought that gun control is to liberals what sex control is to conservatives.

Both are a paternalist expression of insecurity over matters of life and death, over personal responsibility, and over activities which have well-known hazards that can be mitigated by education and social mainstreaming as opposed to moral panic.

Both activities are actually kind of fun if you go about them in a good spirit of self-awareness.

really, to me these two control issues collapse into a single point.

Young Scotty Jenkins, so big and able
Saw his fair colleen stretched by the wall
Tore the left leg from under the table
And smashed all the dishes at Flannigan's Ball


rjt12@.....

---

by: Richard Taylor @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 01:07:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sex doesn't kill anybody. (0.00 / 0)

When is the last time anyone killed a bunch of innocent people by having sex on a freeway overpass, school or church? And unlike sex, guns are only "actually kind of fun" for the person on one end of the experience.

Conservatives may use violence as a substitute for sex but that does not make it sex.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 11:15:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

conservatives treat violence as sex, liberals treat shooting as violence (0.00 / 0)

In all but a tiny minority of cases, there is only one "end" of a shooting experience with a person on it at all. The other "end" is a pile of sand.

Killing a bunch of innocent people, in whatever context, is what should be vigorously persecuted.

Shooting at paper targets, bowling pins, aluminum cans, (and the occasional feral pig) should be left alone. And I maintain that it is kind of fun.

Conservatives argue that sex should be regulated precisely because of its hazards and potential for social harms. These hazards are well known, as are those of shooting, but they should be mitigated by education and by personal and social development, not by insisting on abstinence.

Young Scotty Jenkins, so big and able
Saw his fair colleen stretched by the wall
Tore the left leg from under the table
And smashed all the dishes at Flannigan's Ball


rjt12@.....

---

by: Richard Taylor @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 13:32:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When you or one of your loved ones (0.00 / 0)

is one of that "tiny minority," things look different.

No one cares about people who shoot targets, tin cans, deer, etc. That's a red herring and always has been. "They're gunna take away our guns" is the mantra of panic artists and con men.

The real question is, why did the gun store that supplied the DC sniper blatantly violate laws regarding documenting gun sales for years, and suffer no consequences?

Why can people still buy guns without a background check whatsoever at gun shows, through want ads or on ebay?

Why can't guns be fingerprinted and traced when they are used in crimes?

At what point do we recognize that easy gun laws are killing us and for no good reason?


Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:05:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thus - (0.00 / 0)

if things don't look as different to me as they do to you, I don't have any loved ones in that minority?

game over.

Young Scotty Jenkins, so big and able
Saw his fair colleen stretched by the wall
Tore the left leg from under the table
And smashed all the dishes at Flannigan's Ball


rjt12@.....

---

by: Richard Taylor @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 02:28:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Responsible adults should be allowed guns (0.00 / 0)

Children, the mentally ill, criminals and those who can't shoot straight shouldn't be able to.

I recently re-applied for my gun licence here in the UK. It's not especially onerous - it merely requires you to provide name, address, identification and the like, to swear that you haven't been convicted of any crime, to state your reason for wanting to hold a licence and (if you own a gun) to demonstrate that you can store it safely. Then you have to talk to a police representative for 15 minutes to prove you aren't nuts.

Is that so hard? I realise there is the whole Second Amendment issue, but some people can't be trusted with guns. Like my grandfather, who is no longer in good enough health to be able to shoot properly, or like people who make eliminationist remarks about gypsies (although granted, I know too many gun owners who do that).

I mean for Christ's sake, if martial law is declared, why would you feel bound to your nation's laws then? Get a gun then. If you got one beforehand, the records could easily be seized and it still wouldn't match up to an F-16. Some perspective is needed.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:10:18 AM UTC

It's Dems "as" gun owners, not Dems "vs" gun owners (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect, Chris, I have to disagree with just about everything in your op-ed. Your implication is that Democrats and gun owners represent two distinct groups, but your own data shows 37% of Democratic voters to be gun owners. (Adding non-gun owners who also support gun ownership as a right and the % is larger.) African-Americans are 13% of the population; the GLBT community still less. Yet no Democratic strategist would suggest ignoring either community. But you make the case that gun owners--representing 2/5 of Democrats using your own statistics--are somehow not part and parcel of the Democratic party? That is an odd claim, but one echoed in the media where any pro-gun vote by a Democrat is dismissed as "pandering" to the "gun lobby." When 4 out of 10 constituents support something, that's hardly pandering to outsiders--it's supporting the wishes of the insiders.

This same 37% you refer to represents the % of gun owners who voted for President Obama last fall (source). You may recall the president did not win by 37 percentage points, so why suggest gun owners are a marginal group either he or "Democrats" can ignore. Your thesis suggests alienation between the rank and file voters--who support gun rights--and politicians representing them, or at least the press. The politicians increasingly "get it," as was shown by the U.S. senate vote of 67-to-29 this week to support allowing state gun laws to take precedence in National Parks and NWR.

What has actually changed since Congress passed the (since lapsed) assault weapons ban in 1994, is that the public has become more educated on guns and gun rights and the politicians have followed them. The obviously beneficial relationship between hunting and wildlife conservation has led to the formation of new, progressive gun owners organizations like the American Hunters and Shooters Association (full disclosure: I'm a member), which seeks to represent progressive and conservationist-minded gun owners who bristle at the broader right-wing agenda of other gun lobbying groups.

Finally, I'm not sure I buy the decline in gun ownership cited above (source?), but regardless of its interpretation, the lower gun ownership rates among Democrats should consider the huge numbers of Democratic voters who live in cities like NYC, D.C., Chicago, Philadelphia, or states like Massachusetts or California that until recently had outright bans on gun ownership or state-wide and/or local restrictions limiting access, use and ownership of firearms. Moves by state legislatures like Pennsylvania's to overturn local ordinances against gun ownership and the landmark SCOTUS decision last year of D.C. vs. Heller have changed the game, and I predict you will see an increase in Democratic gun ownership as a result (when I lived in D.C. I knew many people who moved to Virginia specifically to own a gun--one more reason the District's population has fallen so much in 20 years.) These new gun owners will join the trend seen in the 40 states which have passed laws allowing concealed carry of firearms SINCE the first passage of the Assault Weapons Ban. These new gun owners represent all communities within the Democratic party, and these new gun owners--including growing numbers of women and ethnic minority gun owners--are not eager to be represented by the same old arguments and stridency of the old gun lobbies, and they want new leadership on gun advocacy.

But they do expect the Democratic party to protect their rights, and thankfully the politicians are listening--if only the press would catch up!

---

by: SageThrasher @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 16:59:46 PM UTC