GUNS&AMMO June 2004
Guns In The Media
Page 18

By Any Other Name…
Tom Gresham

Don?t be fooled by the Democratic party?s new gun strategy.

I find it strange these days to see Democratic presidential
candidates running over each other to be photographed
hunting pheasants or saying nice things about the Second
Amendment.

As any bird dog in training can attest, a sudden shock not
only grabs attention, but it?s a strong motivator to learn
the lesson. Democrats still rub the welt left by the 2000
election, when, for the first time in history, a presidential
candidate made it part of his platform to restrict the
ability of law-abiding U.S. citizens to buy, own and shoot
firearms.

That plank in the platform cost him the election, and the
Democratic powers that be don?t plan to repeat that mistake.

Don?t be confused here. To the party leaders, the ?mistake?
was not in sup porting more restrictive gun laws. Heavens,
no. The mistake was talking about it during the election.

To correct that political error in judgment, they have done
surveys, held meetings and brain-storming sessions and
written papers, all designed to find out how to woo gun
owners. To terribly mix metaphors, they have come up with a
plan to flirt, but there is no chance we gun owners will end
up with the girl.

Last fall, leaders of the Democratic party held a meeting to
discuss how to reach voters who have strongly held core
values?religion, firearms ownership. etc. Much of what was
discussed can be seen on the website ndol.org, the site of
the Democratic Leadership Council. Under ?Issues? at that
site, click on ?Guns? to find the most recent thinking by
party strategists.

The president of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is
Bruce Reed, who was chief domestic policy advisor to
President Clinton for eight years, including being, as he
describes it, ?President Clinton?s point man on guns.”

One presentation detailed a survey conducted by the new
gun-control group called Americans For Gun Safety. This
group features a number of former Clinton administration
workers among its leadership. The survey presentation came
up with several key points for the Democratic leadership to
consider:

? Americans widely believe that there is a right to bear
arms, but many?gun owners in particular?do not believe
Democrats share this belief.

? As gun owners represent almost four in 10 Americans, this
perception impedes efforts to create a durable Democratic
majority.

? Silence is not the answer since Democrats who do not speak
out on gun issues are presumed to oppose gun rights.

? By becoming both pro safety and pro gun rights, Democrats
can do right on both the politics and policy and make a
realignment of a sizable portion of gun owners possible.

? These gains can occur without losing Democratic base
voters and while gaining among swing voters who reject the
traditional GOP-backed alternative positioning.

These findings then were converted to talking points,
debating tactics and marching orders for candidates. We
already have seen some results, but there will be more.
Expect to hear candidates saying they are for ?gun safety?
while they support the Second Amendment. At no point can
you expect to hear any of the candidates explain how
restricting the rights of law-abiding people will make
criminals less likely to break the law.

Another article in the DLC magazine Blueprint titled ?Guns
And Values? starts with this: ?Democrats need a new way to
frame the gun debate because the old approaches to gun
issues are proven losers? The three authors of this article
are all employees of Americans For Gun Safety. They offer
this warning: ?Unless Democrats start faring better with
those voters, they?re likely to be a permanent minority
party in Congress and continue to be locked out of the White
House.”

These gun-control activists offer the party 10 arguments
candidates can use to appear less extreme to gun owners.
One is: ?The right to own a gun does not extend to
terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens.” Clever, huh?
While supposedly standing up for gun owners, it subtly links
us with bad guys. Too subtle? How about this talking
point? ?Families attending gun shows should not have to rub
shoulders with criminals because Congress mistakenly left
open the gun-show loophole.” Of course, felons can?t legally
buy guns, and the Americans For Gun Safety knows this.
Still, this verbal slight-of-hand clearly says that
criminals are buying guns at gun shows. We know, of course,
that what they call a loophole is simply the ability to sell
or give a gun to someone without having to get the federal
government?s seal of approval. The laws that claim to close
this nonexistent loophole actually would end all private
sales and gifts of guns.

The list goes on, with phrases such as, ?I will champion (my
state?s) gun values.” Fill in your own state. Under that
one, the gun control group advises Democrats to form ?Gun
Owners For (Your Candidate)? groups for each candidate and
to go hunting and target shooting.

_____________________________________________________________
SIDEBAR
_____________________________________________________________
Stealth Candidates

I suspect most gun owners are too savvy to be fooled by
these tactics, but it does give a hunter a warm feeling to
see a candidate hunting or shooting trap. It certainly is
better than having him pounding a table calling for more
gun-control laws. To be fair, there are candidates from all
parties who really are hunters and who really are gun
owners. That, by itself, doesn’t make them pro-gun, and
this is where the rubber meets the road.

Let’s say this clearly. Any politician who believes there
are good guns and bad guns is no friend of the Second
Amendment because the list of bad guns can and does expand
to include all guns.

As you watch and listen to candidates this year, pay
attention to a few key phrases. “Gun safety” has become
the new code words for “gun control.” When someone says she
is in favor of “common-sense” firearm regulations, it means
she supports more gun-control laws. “Responsible gun-safety
regulations” wraps it all together and stakes out a tough
position. After all, how can you be against being
responsible?
How can you be against gun safety?

In light of the clear fact that the Clinton Gun Ban (the
so-called “assault weapon bill”) has not resulted in any
crime reduction, and faced with the clear evidence (a bill
introduced into Congress) that the new plan is to greatly
increase the number and type of firearms that would be
banned under this law, it seems reasonable to ask candidates
if they support banning the type of rifles commonly used for
national shooting championships.

Ask if they think we should hold people responsible for
their own actions. If so, why should a gunmaker have to pay
millions to defend itself against government lawsuits
seeking to hold them responsible for the misuse of guns by
criminals?

Finally, ask the candidates how restricting the gun rights
of the law abiding (waiting periods, no private sales of
guns, banning certain types of guns) will change the
behavior of criminals.

See if you can spot the camouflaged candidates.