Local Commentary
Hey, Dems: Drop Gun Control To Win
By Don John Linton, New West Unfiltered 1-19-06
Last week I got a survey from the Democratic National Committee (I’m not sure why, I'm certainly no Democrat). I guess being touted as the party with no message has lead them to seek one out, even if that means sending surveys conservative leaning independent voters.
The survey asked me to rank a list of issues 1- 10. The list includes education, environment, national security, tax policy, and reproductive freedom. There were some other issues as well.
But what was missing from the list is gun rights. So I penciled it in and ranked it number two after civil liberties.
Now I have read and heard it said time and time again, that the Dems are baffled why some many blue collar folks don’t vote on their ticket. Blue collar America does represent a make or break voting block. And many of these folks have more in common with the Democratic agenda than the other side’s goals for the U.S. of A.
And when I talk about the blue collar voting block I mean those Americans that love Jeff Foxworthy, not because of the absurdity of his humor, but because they can personally relate to finding a car when they mow the grass. They have taken the label Redneck and turned it into a badge of honor.
In being a Redneck, many of these folks are gun owners and most love their guns. So when it comes time to cast that ballot, they tend to shy away from that Democrat fella that promised stronger gun control on the TV last week. In many cases these folks are union workers whose dues went to support a Democratic ticket. Their families may personally benefit from a proposal on health care or the public assistance that helps pay for their kids’ college publicized by the Democrats. But they love their guns first and foremost. And that is on their minds when they mark that ballot.
Here in Montana, the home of all those militias that were so prominently covered in the news during the nineties, we just elected a Democratic Governor in 2004. A country boy rancher, named Brian Schweitzer, took the election with a 50% to 46% victory over Republican Bob Brown. At just 4%, that seems like a tight margin. But keep in mind this is Montana, the land of the big hunt, populated with some of the strongest willed individualists to ever hack a living out of the high plains grasslands and stark Northern Rockies. The people who chose to live here believe in freedom, self reliance and the right to bare arms.
Even the Subaru driving, dreadlock sporting, hippie types show up at potluck parties with a hunk of meat from the elk they shot last season. Montana is a state of blue collar conservative gun owners. Even the white collar types try to come off as work shirt wearers.
So how did Schweitzer convince these well armed voters to cast their ballots against a 16 year Republican winning streak with a Democrat checked off? Well for one thing he showed he supported gun rights. That stall water issue that keeps so many in the blue collar crowd from voting for Democrats, the people’s right to possess and bear arms.
And what is listed on this survey I received from the DNC? A question that reads, “How would you characterize our gun laws in America?� The democratic national committee just might be realizing that gun control is not a good issue for the party. The truth is it’s an issue that only holds their candidates down in the polls.
The National Rifle Association is arguably the strongest political action group in the nation. For the Dems to take them on and ostracize a large voting block is just out right foolish.
If the Democrats really want to gain a foot hold in the so called fly-over-states, the middle America gun toting, hunting, fishing and working class communities, they need to drop the gun control issue. The new breed of Democrats, the breed that can win elections, needs to embrace the Constitution and the Bill or Rights as a whole and tell the blue collar voter that they will defend their right to possess and bear arms, not pass more restrictions and infringements.
So take heed Democrats, gun control only drives the blue collar voters away and losses elections. Pick your fights, and issues carefully, because you'll lose on gun control. [End of article]
Shhhhh!! don't tell'em that, they might listen and win. They haven't listened yet, to middle America, why should they start.
Comment By Bill Monroe, 1-22-06The idea that Democrats are into "Gun Control' is a Republican /Rove talking point.
You say you did not see "Gun rights" as one of the 10 most pressing issues facving the Country. I would bet that you also did not see "Gun Control" listed.
Gee ...did they forget to include this major plank of thew their party?
NO...You have been lied to by the FOx News/Clear channel folks.
Did you know , for instance that Gov Howard (Screaming for his Country) Dean had an "A" rating by the NRA as Gov of Vermont?
The Republicans want to run on "Gays, God and Guns" and until folks like yourself stop falling for this ploy you will continue to elect corrupt Corporate shills will no interest in the real needs or aspirations of their constituents.
Health Care? Environment? Global Warming? Education and poverty? Insurance? Freedom from Government surveillance? Less Government interferrence in our local public schools? Protection of all rights including the right to bear arms?
Vote Democratic.
I am neither republican or democrat. I do not watch fox news. You are obviously brain washed because every democrat I know is far to the left. I would rather see a third party, but I vote against communist and socialist so I vote for anyone that is running against a democrat.
If you thing the democrats have the answers to education, poverty, and health care, you are far from reality. Giving power and money back to the owners of the money is the only way to resolve social problems. You think the goverment's stealing our taxes resolves the problem? Do you actually trust the politicians with your money more than yourself?
Oh...I see.
Well I hope that at least you are working very hard for Instant Runoff Voting...the only means for third Parties to have a chance. See: http://www.fairvote.org/
There is no point in my arguing against your misguided bias the Democrats are "Communists" except to ask you how the ecomnomy was during the last Democrat President?
National Debt? (Surplus)
Size of Government? (Smaller)
Bush has greatly increased the size of Government while giving huge breaks to Millionaires, and placing the Nation on a diet of Fear Fear Fear declaring that we are in a permanent state of War. Our National Debt, meanwhile is thru the roof, and there has been a takeover of media outlets by the Government comlete with fake "news " produced by the State and State "reporters" hired (Remember Jeff Gannon?).
Do you know what all this is a definition of?
Mussolini called it Corporatism. Most folks remember it as Fascism.
God save the United States of America.
As a Green, neither Democrat nor Republican, I find the discussion as to whether we should vote for either party somewhat misplaced. Both have played their parts in making this a totalitarian country. I do think the issue of politics, however, does turn around the slide of America into outright totalitarianism, of the fascist variety, which we are watching happen right before our eyes.
That's the context under which gun control needs to be discussed. The threat of totalitarianism. Although a Green and a progressive, I also agree that the best definition of gun control is calling your shots. For you non-shooters, that's basically knowing that your bullet will go and will strike exactly where you aim it. In other words, marksmanship is the true gun control.
As a former Special Forces officer, I know full well the basic strategy of totalitarian governments--destroy the capability of people to defend themselves, and total control follows, achieved through deliberate terror against the country's own citizens. That's preceisely what happened in the truly great totalitarian governments of the 20th century, Nazi Germany and the Bolshevik Soviet Union. (Although odious, Italian fascism under Mussolini was a joke, and would have collapsed under its own incompetence without the war).
That's why I fully defend the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as protecting the individual right to bear arms as well as to join with others also armed in self defense. Any other definition leaves us helpless.
At the beginning of the 21st century, it's clear that we're going to have to rethink the nature of politics in this country. You won't get that voting either for Democrats or Republicans.
Guns for self-protection is here to stay and 70-90% of Democrats aren't challenging that.
The gun lobbyists scream apocalypse and Wayne LaPierre gets to lead this his elite inside the betway life, feeling like a power, saberrattling to his flock but also effectively serving his Republican & corporate masters like a good manager/servant.
When "gun rights" turns to the right to own machine guns, armor piercing bullets, etc. I think it becomes gun fetishism. I know the argument, dont let them cut more gun rights because it will never stop but the limited gun controls we have now (no guns for felons, purchase check) have a reason basis and adding no machine guns and no armor piercing bullets would not cross the line with me.
Totalitarianism is a threat for the ages and can't be lightly dismissed. But there are terrible costs of 100 million guns in a land with too many people are prone to use them in anger, mostly against their own families and neighbors.
Eric
I suggest you do a detailed and honest study of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, and then sustain the claim that "100 million guns" is worse or that the costs are more. I suggest you begin with Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism.
Robert
The right sees the threat of totalitarianism from the left, the left sees it coming from the right.
It could come from either side. Or both (sorta seems that way right now, to a lesser degree, in this non-critical yet stage, and explains the conflicting warning cries).
Individual guns owners like to see themselves as having a gun to be on the right side if it came to it. I hope it never gets to that.
I have no confidence the NRA would be on the right side, i.e. against totalitarianism, if it came from their favored extreme right, and probably waving a flag or nationalism and probably religon too. I think the NRA leadership would probably be among the first ones to sign up to be the tool of totalitarianism. I hope most NRA members would stick to their stated philisophy of self-defense, defense of liberty and freedom.
Already read that book by Hannah Arendt, several of her others, probably 100+ on WWII, totalitarianism, Nazism, Communism, etc.
Comment By Robert Mark Richeson, 1-23-06Hitler enacted gun control, killed 13000000 defensless citized, Stalin enacted gun control and killed 20,000,000, china also, 30,000,000 - 70,000,000, Ugandas gun control killed 300,000 defensless christians. There are only a few cases of the tirany after gun control. It may seem that Clinton only destroyed the economic wealth and military morale that Reagan built up, but he was doing much more, selling our liberty. Democrats can do whatevery they wantm but as long as they are anti-citizen (2nd amendment) they will not get my vote.
I aree that we will not change this country voting democrat and republican.
Gun control allowed totalitiarianism to be complete and unchallengeable but the presence of guns in town & country folks closets did not prevent it from initially taking hold and winning in Germany, Italy, Russia, etc. The war was won first mostly with words & symbols and enforced with guns & terror and the confiscation of guns that might oppose. Hannah Arendt identifies individual isolation and loneliness as the essential preconditions for total domination. The best defense against totalitarianism is a community/politics that works of the people, for the people on issues that affect them, including trying to improve saftey from gun violence.
If totalitarianism takes hold in America I think
safety could well be used as a slogan alongside patriotism and possibly religion.
Part of how we end up with different takes is that I can't see the America with 100 million guns ever stripped of all its guns. I dont an aggressive, punitative roundup by a totalitarian government would net more than 50-75% of them.
Does that really make me feel safer against the wiles of totalitarianism? Not really. I'd rather set my defense perimeter well ahead of my front door and not rely on light arms. I think they are ultimately more an illusion of safety than a real salvation but I hope it doesnt ever get to that stage.
To attack a rising threat of totalitarianism, I'd focus a lot on the rise of "secret socities" and "secret police" as Arendt notes.
Parties/lobbyist are an anticipated natural part of plural society and democracy but I think it is worth looking at them as potentially dangerous social control groups too. I am exasperated with the current two party behavior and would consider third party if it were done right.
100 million guns is the current reality.
I did not say as infered that it was worse than unchecked threat of totalitarianism or street crime it guards against. Just that it is a substantial cost.
I think we are in a 2 front war and responsible action can be taken on one without surrendering on the other. Guns are a protected constitutional right for self- protection and can play a role in the defense of the many values of freedo. I am not an absolutist on either side of gun rights/gun control and I dont think the majority of mericans see it as necessary or good or right to be on all way on either side and think that a responsible middle ground can be found.
One review on Origins of Totalitarianism provides this summary of Arendt explanation of how/why totalitarianism rose:
"the amenability of European populations to totalitarian ideas was the consequence of a series of pathologies that had eroded the public or political realm as a space of liberty and freedom. These pathologies included the expansionism of imperialist capital with its administrative management of colonial suppression, and the usurpation of the state by the bourgeoisie as an instrument by which to further its own sectional interests. This in turn led to the delegitimation of political institutions, and the atrophy of the principles of citizenship and deliberative consensus that had been the heart of the democratic political enterprise. The rise of totalitarianism was thus to be understood in light of the accumulation of pathologies that had undermined the conditions of possibility for a viable public life that could unite citizens, while simultaneously preserving their liberty and uniqueness "
"For Arendt, the popular appeal of totalitarian ideologies with their capacity to mobilize populations to do their bidding, rested upon the devastation of ordered and stable contexts in which people once lived. The impact of the First World War, and the Great Depression, and the spread of revolutionary unrest, left people open to the promulgation of a single, clear and unambiguous idea that would allocate responsibility for woes, and indicate a clear path that would secure the future against insecurity and danger. Totalitarian ideologies offered just such answers, purporting discovered a 'key to history' with which events of the past and present could be explained, and the future secured by doing history's or nature's bidding."
Today maybe substitute the fracture of the family, drugs, immigration and a more diverse population, crowded housing / traffic, crime and other alienating aspects of modern life. It could indeed move to a more dangerous extreme.
So it behoves us all to be on guard and take action to promote the countervailing forces of good by government, community organization and personal action, plurality and respect, freedom, protection from isolation, chaos.
"I know full well the basic strategy of totalitarian governments--destroy the capability of people to defend themselves, and total control follows"
True, but destroy their individuality, plurality and effective voice for the exercise of these thru elections and other social appartus and you don't absolutely need to attack them and they don't get their blaze of pride/glory last stand, they simply succomb to groupthink or passive acceptance or disenfranchisement and become cogs in the machine controlled by the masters, for the masters. If totalitarianism is going down or might go down here in America now, I think it goes fairly quietly. The methods have advanced so much in the last 50 years.
A country where you can be a Republican and vote for the Brady bill or be a Montana Democrat and defend the 2nd amendment or can join the Green Party or the Constitution party is still able to work, change and sustain itself. But it tenuous. Always has been.
Comment By Eric, 1-23-06The notion of competing totalitarian threats is consistent with the competing threats of fascism and communism in the early 20th century. They both were fantastic rallying cries for the other and hid to some extent the simple craving for absolute power.
In the late 18th century / early 19th it was between King and Republic, and before that between King and Prince. Often it is an unappealing choice between two systems of power that serve one elite or another. In the civil war here it was about many things including north industrial elite against southern agrarian elite.
We have problems, consolidation of real power, deception but still pretty decent compared to the mostly worse alternatives (at least I feel that way slightly more or more often than not).
Other democratic countries with multi-parties, proportional power-sharing reflecting the vote and other strategies for inclusion and fulfilling the legitimate needs/wants of the people should be studied for possible application here. They have pluses and minuses.
I could support urban areas having unified congressional districts and the top however many vote getters are elected like the way city councils are elected in many places instead of a ward system. That might allow a better sense of balanced and shared representation and give 3rd parties a real shot to be a part of the discussion and governance. I'd like to see more independents run too. And more party members stand up for their own and districts point of view when it differs with the party leadership.
The discussion went several places, from gun rights/conmtrol to totalitariansim.
I've already said a lot, but to try to acknowledge the valid concerns about totalitarianism and the potential role for guns, I will admit the historical record is mixed on force against totalitarian threats or realities.
Fascism street skirmished early on the way to power but mainly sold itself on symbols and propaganda to the western proleteriat. The widespread killing of parts of the population were largely the policy after not the means to power.
Communism in the east also used propaganda and force, but with a far greater measure on force, telling and scaring/killing a peasant population into acceptance of or obedience to their ideolgy.
So there was an important distinction between the road to power for fascist totalitarianism in the west and communist totalitarianism in the east.
How did the western populations under fascism get out from under it? Force, but brought from the outside, absent sufficient arms and organized movement to do it domestically. Could arms be sufficient in America to defeat and attempted totalitarian government or throw one off? Perhaps, so I accept they are here, in part for that purpose.
How did eastern populations under communism get out from under it? Mostly social movements (not citizen militia movements, except in some of the southern form USSR republics and there it was replaced which new totalitarianism not freedom) and self-collapse, perhaps aided by the inability to continue the arms / economic race with the US.
How have third world populations gotten out from under totalitarianism and near to it? A varying mixture of armed action, elections, social movements, etc.
Guns matter but ideas/movements matter too, and may have more victories, to avoid totalitarianism and to throw it off.
Back on gun rights/control. The debate has several levels. A proxy for more or less government. Both political parties use it as a wedge issue to motivate voters not only to their side on this issue but with their vote on candidates on that and a few other things to accept a ton of other stuff on the parties agenda whether it be the welfare state or tax breaks for the wealthy. Can't get away from it but I'd prefer if gun policy was decided more on the facts / specific merit and demerits of the proposal and not all the partisan edge seeking.
Fears of government out of control or become total are not out of bounds (they are the reason we have so many checks and balances including the second amendment) even if they often seem overstated and for other self-interested motives. But different people are vigiliant to different threats. Hopefully our combined efforts meet all challenges.
Whoa there Eric! That was a bit much. These forums are setup for dissertations or polemics, but witty repartee dude.
I don't have a problem with "gun rights." But I do have a problem with gun ownership as a supreme right. It may be ok in here in the middle of nowhere, but you start packing people in, then throw in the everyday aggravation of daily living in a metropolis, then mix in a little ethnic hatred, and you've got a potent mix of destabilization and civic degredation.
I just returned from Kabul. You can buy any weapon you want. And, if you can't find it, you can order it custom from factories in Pakistan. Hasn't helped their situation much. In fact, I'd argue that the right to keep arms there has made Afghanistan a hugely unstable unsafe and not very nice place to live.
Same with Somalia. No government. Anyone can own/shoot any weapon he/she wants. Do we want to go there? Hell no!
There's a middle ground between the right to always keep and bear arms and totalalitarian gun control, and that middle ground shifts depending on the circumstances of each civic boundary. I'd argue that each civic unit (whether it be a town, city, county, state) should be allowed to regulate whether or not it permits the ownership and discharge of various weapons within the confines of its jurisdiction.
I would love to own a few RPGs and think it would be a better deterant to Republican totalitariansm than my current .308, .45, and shotguns. But, I understand why I, a freedom loving reactionary conservative liberal socialist anarchist, should not be permitted to test fire an RPG in the middle of Helena.
I made a post and that was going to be all but then added additional comments to respond to several replies I got. Then I added more acknowledging additional complexity of the issue. I take debate seriously, if I start, I am not going to shy away from saying more just because some feel it is too much or more than they want. I let most debates go without saying anything but every once in a while I feel an obligation to share my perspective. Freedom of speech, a vital thing.
Captbobalou, your post moves around a lot too but it sounds like we both agree that a middle ground can be found between total gun control and no gun control.
But yeah, one person's necessary things to say can be a lot of hot air to the next person. I'll admit I could / should have trimmed back some but talking about life and death of people, the country and its ideals, spilling too many words seems like a minor offense compared to too few. Everyone can sort thru it, skip it as they wish.
Hopefully find something worthwhile.
Eric, You made some good comments. I especially agree with you about local communities. Local communities can handle their issues far better than a distant government entity. It is certain that once in a while a few of these entities may go bad, but it is far better than an entire nation subjecting tyranny.
You can leave a community far better than a country and if there is a problem, it is easier for other forces to prevent