Kerry blasts lapse of assault weapons ban,

OK   So did Kerry just step in it by taking on this issue.

WASHINGTON (AP) John Kerry is criticizing President Bush for letting a decade-long ban on assault weapons expire while unveiling his own $5 billion plan to fight crime and picking up a police union endorsement.

''George Bush made a choice today,'' the president's Democratic challenger said in remarks prepared for a Washington audience Monday. ''He chose his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and the families he promised to protect.''

I find it a bit disturbing that Kerry is jumping into this frying pan, and though I admire his courage, I am not sure it is the best issue to be jumping on, and especially to be attacking the gun lobbies.

I mean did'nt Clinton even say one of the big reasons Gore lost was the BS gun issues. It has become fairly obvious to me lately what a BS law this assault wepons ban was. I mean it sounds great, and yeah it does get some stuff out of the mix, but overall it is very weak, and we could do better.

But how do we get some of the more moderate gun enthusiasts and NRA members to come to some rational compromises on gun control.And probably more importantly, how do we get the NRA and extremists to keep from painting Kerry as being anti-gun.

I mean seeing what a weak law it is that lapsed, I just dont understand Kerry taking the political risks of jumping on this issue.

•  In my experience

  There is no such thing as a moderate NRA member.

  They treat ANY, and I mean ANY legal challenge to ANY aspect of unrestricted gun ownership as a threat to their personal dignity.

  by fblau on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:20:14 AM PDT

  •  I disagree

    that there are no moderate NRA members.. Michael Moore stands out very strikingly, and our own Meteor Blades I believe falls in that category. In fact he had a great main page piece on the assault weapons ban the other night.

    We just seem unable to frame the debate in our terms, so the dems come off looking like totally anti 2nd amendment.  

    by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:29:39 AM PDT

•  Best spin

  "What's appropriate in South Dakota may not be best for New York City. This issue is best left to State and Local control."

  by ben masel on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:21:19 AM PDT

  •  What Democrats Should Do

    Ben, I somewhat agree.

    So here's what Democrats should do. Every Democratic Congressman from an urban or suburban district should go visit the neighborhood AK-47 store and buy one when they go on sale. Then they should hold it up to the TV cameras and say, "Here's what the Republican Party is doing." (OK, a little more polished than that, but you get the idea.)

    Can we get just that little bit of organization going, please?

    by sipples on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:51:37 AM PDT

•  Assault Weapons Ban = Perfect Storm

  For Kerry and the Democratic party, the lapse of the Assault Weapons ban is a high-profile event that leaves Bush and Republicans very exposed to swing voters.

  First off, the ban is widely popular with most of the populace and can be explained in clear imagery without having to resort to nuance. I mean, there's nothing ambiguous about walking into a gun store or show and buying an AK-47 or some other assualt rifle. It's just wrong. People realise that, it's not something you have to explain.

  Second, it leaves open the Republicans (this isn't just Bush-Congressional leadership as a whole is culpable for this) to very correct charges that Republican special interests are trumping the interest of the everyday American. In the speech linked, Kerry specifically points out the WOT. You don't win that war by allowing people to buy assault rifles which can later be used by individuals to shoot up offices, schools, or to allow terror cells to arm themselves.

  There's another rift here as well in the gun control debate. For years the NRA and GOP have taken an "enforcement" policy, where they claim that what we need is more enforcement of existing laws, and not new laws being passed. Now that laws are actively being peeled back, they have lost that plank as an arguing point and when the control debate heats up again (it always does after a tragedy) it could really hurt the GOP in congress.

  This is a good attack to take. I've been hoping Kerry would pounce on this this week, and am glad he did, and more importantly glad he's connecting it with support for first responders (very popular issue w/ public) and the War On Terror (#1 issue with public). Well played, in my opinion.

  by Fragamemnon on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:29:24 AM PDT

  •  Honesty angle

    What is most striking is that it is a good example of Bush's dishonesty on the issue. He says he supports it and does nothing. Not the picture of resolve and following through. There is the potential that it may backfire on him with hardcore gun supporters, but moderates? You really think Michael Moore is against the ban?

    by bam bam on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:39:59 AM PDT

  •  You know

    I agree with a lot of what you say, it just doesnt ever seem like this has been a winning issue for the dems. On the contrary it has been a major loser for us, and I think like most things, it is mostly about how we allow the other side to frame the issue in their terms, instead of creating some proactive messages that resonate with the people.

    I'm just unsure wether this is the time to take on this issue.

    by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:40:25 AM PDT

    •  Against Teflon Bush

       We may not have much choice. This is a fresh issue, no accusation of false documents here and it is relevant. Also, maybe we should give up on the whole only worry about the swing voter approach, and maybe try to get more of the base involved, you know the millions who did not vote?

      by bam bam on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:44:02 AM PDT

      •  we may not

        It really is just a matter of how it is framed.  Clinton framed it beautifully, about a month or so ago, and he was talking about how the repug congress was about to let expire one of his programs that put more police on the street, 80,000, and actually on the street, and now the program was going to be allowed to die. And let the assault weapons die at the same time.  WTF   why are'nt dems screaming about this shit.    

        by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:56:51 AM PDT

    •  Alone, it's a loser

      The assault weapons ban issue alone isn't a real winner. People know that the sale of these kind of weapons are foolhardy and wreckless, but any attack on the lack of the renewal alone wouldn't do much good outside one or two Action McNews cycles.

      Where it does work is in connecting it to the war on terror, and the easy-to-connect point the lapse of the ban gives and how clearly visible the willingness of the GOP is to compromise (yes, the C word!) the war on terror for the sake of their special interests. That has better legs and is a another part of the aggregate strategy the Kerry campaign has been waging all along-if you can make swing voters fault the current administration enough to get over the "support the president in wartime" hump, then they'll be willing to give you the look you want from them. If they do, K-E wins.

      by Fragamemnon on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:12:47 AM PDT

•  public opinion

  has changed on this over the last ten years, in my opinion only.

  The terrorist argument is the best to use for this issue. I'm more scared of some dude showing up over at Times Square mowing people down than I am of a bomb.

  -fink

  by fink on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:37:52 AM PDT

•  Wrong

  Swing voters in WVa, OH, and PA favor protections of their rights to own handguns and hunting weapons, not the right to own Uzis and AK-47s.  Only conservatives in those states hold that view.  Clinton won WVa after signing the assault weapons ban.  That is not what caused Gore's defeat.  Instead it was a belief that he would go much further.

  by mel4clark on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:39:48 AM PDT

•  that's the best point Iv'e heard all day

  Mel about the assualt ban, Kerry will not lose one vote over this, He's established himself as a hunter andsas best as he could a protecter f legit gun rights something Gore did not do, in 2000 thier were some otherwise DEM voters who believed Gore would take thier guns away and Gore did not do enough to battle the perception, this year do you really think anyone that believes Kerry is bad for gun rights isnt voting Bush to begin with. The NRA would go after Kerry no matter what he says about this, so he might as well try and get some votes linking this to terror, Kerry desperately needs to find ways to out  "toughen" Bush on terror and regardless of the merits here's a way and we'd better use it.

  by nevadadem on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:52:32 AM PDT

  •  It's not just Kerry losing votes.

    A substantial part of the Gun crowd isa unhappy with Bush over the PATRIOT Act, and leaning Badnarik. To the extent these folks perceive Kerry as a threat to their Firearms rights, their votes will revert to Bush.

    by ben masel on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:06:20 AM PDT

•  Wisconsin voters

  in 1998 approved, by a 76-24 margin, an Amendment to the State Constitution making the Right to Keep and Bear more explicitly an individual Right. Stipulated this is not exactly the same thing as the AWB, but does represent overall sentiment.

  Russ Feingold recognised this, reversing his previous support for the AWB, saying his decision was based on feedback from his constant listening sessions. (he hits all 72 Wisconsin Counties every year.)

  It doesn't matter how much support AWB has in MD, NJ, CA. It plays badly in AZ, NM, CO, MN, WI, MI, WV, PA. I don't know about Florida, and suspect it's a wash in Ohio.

  by ben masel on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 09:53:21 AM PDT

  •  Recent polls in a dozen swing states

    Put support for renewing the ban at something like 65 to 70 percent.

    by sarcaustic on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:10:31 AM PDT

    •  Source?

      Link?

      by ben masel on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:20:13 AM PDT

      •  Here ya go:

        This was a Democratic-run survey, but the results are rather overwhelming.

        "The ten states surveyed include: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico,
        Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. CFA and EFSGV
        surveyed public opinion about renewing and strengthening the ban among likely voters
        by gender, gun ownership, military affiliation, NRA support and union household
        membership. In four states (Missouri, Ohio, South Dakota, and West Virginia), a
        NASCAR survey question was added.

        The study includes general findings by state as well as support among key
        demographics. Significant findings include:

        * Overall, a substantial majority of likely voters supports renewing and strengthening
        the federal assault weapons4 ban.

        * Midwestern states support renewing the assault weapons ban only slightly more
        than Southwestern states. Midwestern states (OH, WI, MI, and MO) averaged 72%
        support for renewing the ban. Southwestern states (AZ and NM) averaged 67%
        support

        * Rural states traditionally seen as very conservative on "gun control" strongly favor
        renewing the ban. 68% of both South Dakota and West Virginia voters support
        renewing the ban.

        * Majorities of gun owners in all but two states favor renewing the ban. Only Missouri
        and Ohio had slightly less than 50% of support among gun owners and NRA
        supporters.

        * In nine of ten states surveyed, union households support renewing the ban by at
        least 60% (excluding South Dakota because the sample was too small to calculate).
        In Pennsylvania, 80% of union households support renewing the ban, and 73%
        support strengthening it.

        * At least 60% of current and former military and military families support renewing the
        ban in all states surveyed. In Wisconsin, more than three-fourths (77%) of current
        and former military and military families support renewing the ban.

        * More than six out of 10 women support renewing the ban in all states surveyed.
        Eighty percent of women in Pennsylvania, and 78% of women in Ohio, support
        renewing the ban.

        * More than 60% of NASCAR fans support renewing the ban in Ohio (64%), South
        Dakota (63%), and West Virginia (64%). Only Missouri NASCAR fans surveyed just
        below half (49%) in support of renewing the ban."

        Full report

        by sarcaustic on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:54:32 PM PDT

    •  It's the voting booths that matter

      People may like the idea of an AWB, but they don't rally around it. A Washington march for abortion rights drew hundreds of thousands this year. A Washington march for gun control drew maybe a thousand this year.

      The anti-gun control lobby get their people to vote. This is the #1 priority of many voters and if you cross them, they will make you pay. It's no coincedence that Democrats lost the House after they passed AWB. Nancy Pelosi has stayed far away from gun control since taking over as House Minority Leader because she sat down and listened to all of the red and swing state reps who told her that gun control is a disastrous issue for Democrats.

      I hate the NRA, and I loathe LaPierre. That organization is not "moderate" and it has instilled a hideous militia paranoia in many members (it is also a huge whore for the GOP). But the bottom line is that gun control is not a winning issue for Democrats, and should be shied away from. I personally feel that the only other issues that even comes close to gun rights for many Americans is abortion. Even gay rights is not as big a deal as "they're going to take away my gun!!!"

      by JamesB3 on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:26:52 AM PDT

•  Basically agree

  Why Kerry chooses to highlight this issue is beyond me.  Maybe he knows that like sex, race and abortion, the media likes stories about guns.  But this is typical "social liberal," not populist, thinking.  This will not help in the swing states.  It may not hurt, but it uses up media oxygen on a realtively inconsequential issue.

  by Paleo on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:05:59 AM PDT

•  CNN Poll

   
  CNN Poll

  Is it right to let the assault weapons ban expire?
  Yes

    25%

  59445 votes
  No

    75%

  175263 votes
  Total: 234708 votes

  by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:07:51 AM PDT

•  This is a valid issue today

  When Kerry first took on this issue, he framed it in the context of the war on terrorism.

  Essentially the argument is this:

  * Does it make sense to restrict liberties guaranteed in the bill of rights for searches and seizures, freedom of the press, habeas corpus, and so on and ignore the modest restrictions on the right to bear arms that might actually make us safer.

  Today, he is saying that Bush is choosing his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police, and by implication, corporate interests over effective action on homeland security.

  Kerry has made the same point about port security.  Bush has placed this under voluntary action by the shipping industry and local port commissions.

  by TarheelDem on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:22:27 AM PDT

  •  Using the issue to make other points

    I agree- I'm not convinced that the issue itself is a winner but it's worth the risk if Kerry can tar Bush as:

    1. Dishonest for feigning support for it in 2000 then abandoning it.
       
    2. Beholden to special interests.

    Both of those ideas are the kind of themes that are easily supported throughout the last 3 years.  If reinforced they can be powerful detriments to Bush's personal popularity.

    by Preston on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:47:51 AM PDT

    •  definitely preston

      Kerry needs to come out and say what a joke Bush is for calling him a flip flopper and then using this as a perfect example.  Every Dem out there needs to be coordinated on this and all rise up at once and say this. The ban itself isnt important, the Bush flip flop is.

      by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 10:50:35 AM PDT

      •  also

        we can use it to paint Bush as weak on terror.

        Kerry needs to be able to paint a big picture of Bush through anecdotes.  W=Wrong is a start but he has allowed too long to pass without painting a cohesive portrait of Bush's failures.

        by Preston on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:09:50 AM PDT

        •  i seriously

          doubt we can paint Bush as weak on terror. For some unbelievable reason many Americans seem to think that Bush and the repugs are stronger on defense then the Dems. The shallowness of  that part of the electorate , despite any or all proof to the contrary is unfathomable. I think its just because they have indoctrinated people so much by that meme, it has actually taken hold. Its like the repugs saying they are better at balancing the budget.

          by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:16:52 AM PDT

          •  Attacking the strength

            I think Kerry needs to take the Bush approach and take 3 things that show Bush has made the US weaker.  In the debates Kerry can roll out "Where's Osama".  

            Rove knows that you can't allow the opponent to rest on his strengths- we can't afford to give terrorism to the Republicans.

            by Preston on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:33:48 AM PDT

            •  yup

              attacking their strength is definitely key.

               The "wheres osama" line I fear could backfire however, if indeed his capture turned out to be the October surprise.
               I do think we need to start pressing on how, despite all warnings, 9/11 happened on their watch goddamnit. They were warned, and they stood down, and we need to bring it up.

              by mickey on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:37:32 AM PDT

              •  They can't 'find him' in October

                The skepticism would be brutal.  I think they've already missed the chance to pull Osama out of a cave (or a Pakistani prison cell).  Kerry should wait till the first debate and then nail Bush with: "You say that you're strong on the war on terrorism but you've diverted our attention away from terrorism and you haven't captured the man that killed 3,000 Americans: Where is Osama bin Laden?"

                I agree with Kerry's decision not to mention Osama to this point- it was too risky.  But, if he appears in October the public response is out of our control anyway: either the public believes it and they vote for Bush with 65% or they don't and they toss him on his ass.

                by Preston on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 12:08:42 PM PDT

          •  Results matter

            We were attacked on September 11, 2001.

            Why?  Because Bush was weak on terror.  Talked tough; did nothing.  All hat; no cattle.

            by TarheelDem on Mon Sep 13, 2004 at 11:59:40 AM PDT