An Interesting Take by George Will

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
This morning I watch the ABC Sunday show and George S. asked the panel about the biggest winners in the election.

Will's first choice was the NRA as the Democrats did not make an issue out of gun control.


While, this forum is full of hysteria as are other gun forums, is Will on to something? The Democratic leadership may want to keep this issue on a low profile. Progun Dems have been elected and if the party moves towards the center - the gun issue is not that important or useful to them.

Of course, some folks still have it in their craw - but it may go nowhere. This action is to be rewarded, IMHO. It is more important to shift the center of the country towards the RKBA as compared to the Rove strategy of trying to governn with a base that really isn't that charming to many of us.
 
Glenn-
I've been arguing this point since Tuesday.

Obviously, the Dems are gonna have to work this out. For instance, people like Schumer and Feinstein are shoe-ins for re-election. They may push hard to get the Party to move on firearms legislation right now. It's an issue of personal validation and they have no personal downside.

OTOH, who's the most powerful force in the party? Bill and Hill.
- What do Bill and Hill want in '08? The Oval Office.

- What does pushing thru firearms legislation between now and then gain them? The far left might smile brighter when they cast their (inevitable) vote.

- What does pushing thru firearms legislation between now and then lose them? Possibly the Oval Office and probably control of the House.

The Dems are not stupid and while they are every bit as adroit at shooting their feet as the Republicans, the smart move will be to look moderate, consolidate, take the Presidency and move their pet agendas ahead in '09.

Let's all remember, the Dems don't really care about Gun Control one way or the other. It was an issue that they thought would keep them in power; it ended up getting them bounced for 12 years. There is no hue and cry from their voters that makes this a pivotal issue in the Post 9-11 world.

It's not off the table forever; I'm just betting they'll avoid it, for the most part, unless they can get big wins in '08.
Rich
 
They have a memory.

The assault on "assault weapons" really took off on January 17, 1989 when a deranged killer named Patrick Purdy opened fire at an elementary school in Stockton, California, killing 5 children and wounding 29 others and a teacher during his murderous spree. This horrific tragedy could have been avoided had Purdy – with his sizable criminal record and history of mental illness – been incarcerated, but that's beside the point. The gun control lobby seized this ripe opportunity to advance their agenda, placing the blame squarely on one of the guns used, a Chinese-made semi-automatic look-alike of the military AK-47 fully-automatic assault rifle.

...

And so the witch hunt was on. Later that year, California enacted its "assault weapons" ban (which would become a model for the eventual 1994 Federal ban).

The Federal ban on "assault weapons" became a top priority of the Clinton administration in early-1994, and was passed by a very narrow margin (216-214) in the House of Representatives (where the most resistance was expected). On September 13, 1994, about a month after being passed by the Senate, the "Crime Bill" (which included the ban) was signed by the president.

A few months later, Democrats were eviscerated at the polls, losing nine seats in the Senate, and a whopping 54 seats in the House of Representatives, handing over control of Congress to the Republicans. Among the casualties was then House Speaker Tom Foley (who, thanks to some last minute rule-breaking and arm-twisting, was largely responsible for the ban passing in the House); a district tossing out a Representative who holds such a high-level position of seniority and leadership in Congress was quite a rare event. In any case, President Clinton stated that 20-21 of the seats lost in the House were directly due to their votes on the ban. Considering that the Repubicans' post-election majority was only 14 seats, it is clear that Clinton's "assault weapons" ban cost his party control of the House.
Click to expand...
 
Kind like what the Gus Grissom character said in "The Right Stuff":

"It's not about pussy...it's about MONKEY!"

What Gus is tryin' to say is:

It is about POWER. The individual "items" that putatively make up the "agenda" of either one of the wings of the one political party in this country are only that, "items". They are the MEANS to the end (Power), not the end itself.

The Democratic wing has some power....and it wants more. That primary consideration shall guide their actions for some time.
 
If you need to reference a crude quote, get it right.

Gus Grissom: "The issue here is not pussy. The issue here is monkey."

And I'd suggest making a little more effort to find a more civilized example to make your point.

That is a warning. Lucky you.
 
By Gerorge, Mr. Will is onto something that some of us have been saying.

pre 2006 election

Enactment of the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.” President Bush, marking the culmination of six years of hard work by NRA-ILA and gun owners nationwide, signed “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (S. 397) into law on October 26, 2005, thus ending the campaign of politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers. The Senate passed S. 397 by a 65-31 vote on July 29, 2005 and then by the House by a 283-144 vote on October 20, 2005.
Click to expand...

by the simple use of mathematics we can see some Democrats voted for this. Which leads me to the conclusion that if conservative Democrats were elected to the House and Senate those voting margins will remain much the same. The main themes of the Democrats were not gun control. If those Dem leaders get too radical they may end up putting a block of representatives at odds with them. Look up Blue Dog Democrats and you will see there are about 37 of them who tend to vote more conservatively than the Dem Leadership. Chances are this election may add to that number. Pelosi has some rough road ahead of her before 2008. The Question is will she trade the big issues like Iraq, minimum wage, illegal immigration and prescription drugs for the less important issue of gun control? Another interesting thing would be to see democratic leadership gun control legislation come to the House floor and fail because the conservative Democrats voted it down with the Republicans. That would be a big loss of face for the Dem leadership. The Dems have a lot more to lose than the Republicans do at this time.
 
"It's not off the table forever; I'm just betting they'll avoid it, for the most part, unless they can get big wins in '08."--Rich

Not that you need validation from me, Rich, but I think you hit the nail on the head.
 
The "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act", despite it's supposedly worthy goal of protecting gun manufacturers (who need as much help as they can get), was BAD.

Instead of reform of the judicial racket (the CAUSE of the problem), it simply serves up another level of FedGOD power. Any government that has the power to give you what you want, has the power to take everything you have AWAY.

This was a case of addressing the symptom, not the disease.

Any law that gives the Federal government more power is BAD.
 
And, for what it is worth, let us remember that George Will is anti-gun. So, you might want to take any "good news" from him with a grain of salt.
 
Pragmatic democrats will rule the roost at least through the 08 election. Gun control has little upside and major downside potential to them. Individual democrats may have to respond to the demands of their base (unlike certain other parties) by mounting the cheer. I just don't think a national focus is in the works. There may well be some freelance civil litigation quietly approved by Ms. Dom, however, I think all will be quiet until democrats achieve their "sustainable" majority. I actually see republicans using gun control to try to whip up pro-republican sentiment over the next two years. I think it inevitable republicans will circle back around and tend to their base. Whether the base wants to be courted remains to be seen.
 
I agree that they will lay low till after the 08 elections. Then it will depend on the political climate at the time. If possible many will push for more and more firearm control. The elections of 94 will not be forgotten that soon either.
We have been on a good trend the last few years, lets all hope it continues.
 
Again, I think the battle over the RKBA has shifted to the states. 7 states do NOT have the RKBA in their state constitutions, in others it has ben gutted. The anti-gunnrs will rely on their favorite tactic of Government by Judiciary by trying to drive gun manufacturers and dealers out of business through lawsuits. arguing that anti-gun states and cities do have to recognize
licenses to CCW from other states, shutting down firing ranges through harassmentetc.
 
My predictions

They will probably win the White House in 08. The likely winner will be Hillary Clinton, who is an anti-gun Democrat from an Anti-gun state. They will probably pick up a few seats in the Senate and House. Then, the media will find a few school shootings to make hay of. The White House will release a few Justice Department studies linking an increase in violence to military-style assault weapons--and then there will be a bill to renew the AWB, probably sans the magazine provision (or something like a 20 round limit). They will split the gun lobby by throwing in some pro-hunting nonsense, like a "hunter's bill of rights" which a lot of gullible pro-gun people will swallow. There will be no sunset provision.

Still, I agree we have a few nominally free years left. Stock up on ARs and AKs while you can.
 
I was kind of thinking the same thing.
Georgie Peorgie is probably upset that, what won in this election is conservatism.
I was very suprised to see all 3 House seats go blue in Indiana. But, then I read an article about those so-called democrats. They are all conservatives.

I think we need to get this conservative part of the Democratic party back in power and leading the Dems. Heck, if we had someone like Harry Truman leading the Dems I would feel great. I might even rejoin the Democratic party after they left me in the 90's. But, with Pelosi at the helm?????? Here comes AWB 2.0.......(sigh)
 
From Hubert Humphrey:

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)"
 
Widespread possession of guns is justified by considerations of public safety, individual dignity and healthy democracy. Public safety because law enforcement personnel can never be numerous enough to guarantee safety. (Remember this test: Call for a cop, an ambulance and a pizza. Which will get there first?) Personal dignity implies, among much else, readiness for self-defense. And the health of democratic culture is implicated in the general public's involvement in public safety. This is so because freedom is not a gift from government, and defending it is not a duty that properly responsible citizens will entirely delegate to government.
Click to expand...

Mr Will put the essence of the argument in that paragraph.
 
JLelli,

And, for what it is worth, let us remember that George Will is anti-gun. So, you might want to take any "good news" from him with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Really? Would an anti-gunner write an article like this?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will110501.asp
11-12-2006 06:33 PM
Click to expand...

Would a pro-gunner say this?

"Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago....[The government should] deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrassing Amendment."

Click to expand...

-George Will, 1991
 
Greg Bell...

I understand what you're saying, but it is possible that the George Will of 2006 has learned a few things that the George Will of 1991 didn't know. I agree with your caution, but I think we'd better be looking for all of the allies we can find in the days ahead. I'm willing to go on a little faith. YMMV. :)
 
True! Plus, I agree with Will on the fundamentals (conservatism). Sometimes, I'm afraid, George is too concerned with fitting in with the establishment and that clouds his judgement. Gun control was extremely popular with the East-coast tea party set back in the early 90s, so he can be forgiven for wanting to fit in.

George is alright, he is just a little too establishmentarian. Kind of like his turn-around on the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top