Is Kerry Anti-gun?

[Makalakumu]

I thought I would pose this question. The NRA seems to be finding quite a bit in Kerry's voting record that would indicate that he is rather anti-gun. Yet, I am interested in hearing both sides. Perhaps we can present them...

 

[Phil Elmore]

Recent hunting photo opportunities aside, Kerry is indeed "anti-gun." As a Democrat from MA you could not expect him to be otherwise. NRA-ILA had a fact sheet on his voting record; before anyone yells that we can't trust the source, be sure to check the footnotes in which the exact votes are listed.

FACT: Kerry co-sponsors a bill that would ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, a gigantic step toward bringing Australian-style gun control to the U.S.1

FACT: Kerry says, "I think you ought to tax all ammunition, personally, I think you ought to tax guns."2

FACT: Kerry has voted nine times in favor of banning semi-auto firearms.3

FACT: Kerry has voted for a Ted Kennedy amendment to ban most center-fire rifle ammunition, including the most common rounds used by hunters and target shooters.4

FACT: Kerry has voted to close off hundreds of thousands of acres of the California Mojave Desert to hunting.5

FACT: Kerry was one of only 18 Senators to oppose the Firearms Owners` Protection Act, which ended alarming abuses being committed under the 1968 Gun Control Act.7

FACT:Kerry was one of only 29 Senators to vote to prohibit gun manufacturers from discharging debts created by the reckless lawsuits filed by municipalities.8

FACT:Kerry has voted to allow BATF to conduct unlimited warrantless inspections of FFL holders.9

FACT: Kerry has voted to criminalize legal sales between private individuals at gun shows.10

FACT: Kerry has voted to impose penalties of a year in prison and a $10,000 fine on an adult if a juvenile steals a firearm from him, and then merely displays it in a public place.11

FACT: Kerry has voted to force many small firearms dealers out of business, which would have impacted both the availability and price of guns, particularly in rural areas.12

FACT: Kerry has voted 11 times to force law-abiding citizens to wait to exercise their Second Amendment rights. He voted to keep the federal waiting period after the National Instant Check System was in place.13

FACT: Kerry voted twice to eliminate the Civilian Marksmanship Program.14

FACT: Kerry wants to silence gun owners` voices. When NRA sought the same exemption from campaign finance rules that news organizations have, Kerry called that effort "hijacking America`s airwaves."15

FACT: Kerry commended the Million Mom March for their march on Washington that included calls for gun owner licensing, gun registration and other restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.16

If elected president, Kerry will pack the U.S. Supreme Court with Dianne Feinstein/Chuck Schumer/Ted Kennedy-selected anti-gun activists who believe you have no right to own any firearm.

For more information on John Kerry, please visit www.nrapvf.org

1. Signed on as co-sponsor of S. 1431 on Nov. 21, 2003.

2. CNN "Late Edition," Nov. 7, 1993.

3. Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 295, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 294, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 293, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 375, Nov. 17, 1993; Vote No. 365, Nov. 9, 1993; Vote No. 133, June 28, 1990; Vote No. 103, May 23, 1990; Vote No. 102, May 23, 1990.

4. Vote No. 28, March 2, 2004.

5. Vote No. 87, April 12, 1994.

6. Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004 ("poison pill" amendments).

7. Vote No. 142, July 9, 1985.

8. Vote No. 4, Feb. 2, 2000.

9. Vote No. 140, July 9, 1985.

10. Vote No. 134, May 20, 1999; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004.

11. Vote No. 118, May 14, 1999; Vote No. 224, July 22, 1998.

12. Vote No. 227, July 30, 1993.

13. Vote No. 141, July 9, 1985; Vote No. 115, June 28, 1991; Vote No. 113, June 28, 1991; Vote No. 278, Nov. 27, 1991; Vote No. 53, Mar. 19, 1992; Vote No. 262, Oct. 2, 1992; Vote No. 385, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 386, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 387, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 390, Nov. 19, 1993; Vote No. 394, Nov. 20, 1993.

14. Vote No. 325 Oct. 12, 1993; Vote No. 178, June 27, 1996.

15. Vote No. 64, April 2, 2001; "Kerry asks FEC to Block NRA Channel," AP, Dec. 9, 2003.

16. Vote No. 104, May 17, 2000.

Any "martial" artist who supports civilian disarmament isn't a MARTIAL artist at all.

 

[heretic888]

Any "martial" artist who supports civilian disarmament isn't a MARTIAL artist at all.

Or.... maybe they just think people getting shot is a "bad thing"?? :uhyeah:

"Civilian disarmament". Heh, I love the political terms people invent for things. They're so kewl.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I think by the NRA and anti-gun-control activists' standards, Kerry is, indeed, "anti-gun". He doesn't appear to believe in the elimination of all gun ownership, but does favor restrictions that many on that side of the fence oppose.

As for The Hyperbolist's claim about "real" martial artists, I think it speaks for itself.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

If you are not educated and trained in the use of firearms, you are not qualified to have an opinion on gun control.

Just as non-martial artists are not allowed to have an opinion on, say, beating the snot out of someone else? Or men are not allowed to have an opinion on pregnancy and abortion?

Wow.

Anyways, Kerry's voting record is consistent.

 

[Cruentus]

For this election I feel that this is what I call a non-issue.

I don't think that Kerry will do anything to effect gun legislation for the next four years, nor will Bush.

This is the same with the abortion issue, IMHO. Bush will not effect the abortion legislation for the next 4 years, nor will Kerry.

This makes these non-issues for me. This is also why I feel it is important to look at all the issue's and not just a select one or two when selecting a canidate; some issues are more pressing then others at different times.

Just my thoughts.

Paul

 

[michaeledward]

Paul,

While neither Bush or Kerry will do anything via legislation concerning abortion, we should be aware of the state of the Supreme Court. The next President may well be required to appoint 2 or 3 justices.

I predict, if Kerry wins the election, we will soon hear of retirement plans for Justice O'Connor, Justice Rehnquist, and quite possibly the ever spry Justice Stevens.

Review carefully what President Bush said about the Dred Scott decision in the third debate, and you will recognize that he plans to submit justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Mike

As far as guns go ... Kerry may work to re-impose the assault weapons ban.

 

[Tgace]

I try not to vote on "side issues" as much as I can. The trouble is sometimes one side seems to be "against" each and every side issue Im "for". It starts to add up after a while.

 

[raedyn]

I think each voter must decide for themselves what is a 'side issue'. You may not care too much one way or the other about gun control, but maybe I am a major gun enthusiast, and this is vitally important to me. To you, it's a side issue perhaps but to me it's THE issue.

(This is a hypothetical example, of course. I wouldn't characterize myself as a major gun enthusiast)

 

[Tgace]

I think each voter must decide for themselves what is a 'side issue'. You may not care too much one way or the other about gun control, but maybe I am a major gun enthusiast, and this is vitally important to me. To you, it's a side issue perhaps but to me it's THE issue.

(This is a hypothetical example, of course. I wouldn't characterize myself as a major gun enthusiast)

True..True...however there is much more to governing a nation than "hot button" issues like gun control, abortion, gay marriage etc....theres the "larger" issues of budgets, economy, defense etc. Sometimes its tough to see past a candidates stance on one "side issue" to see what he is like on the others. I admittedly do it. I believe many voters do it...an effect of our "sound bite" culture I guess......

 

[michaeledward]

I think each voter must decide for themselves what is a 'side issue'. You may not care too much one way or the other about gun control, but maybe I am a major gun enthusiast, and this is vitally important to me. To you, it's a side issue perhaps but to me it's THE issue.

(This is a hypothetical example, of course. I wouldn't characterize myself as a major gun enthusiast)

True, True ......however there is much more to governing a nation than "hot button" issues... deficits, outsourcing, offensive war etc. Sometimes its tough to see past a candidates stance on one issue to see what he is like on the others. I admittedly do it. I believe many voters do it...an effect of our "sound bite" culture I guess......

(Thanks Tgace ... couldn't have said it better myself)

 

[Flatlander]

I'm freakin' out, man.

 

[GAB]

Hi Flatlander, Why is that?
What are your thoughts regarding us USA Gun persons? I know or I should say, have a pretty good idea about way up a US thoughts on the firearm position.
The snowbirds use to be a help on your folks thoughts, but have not been south for awhile...

Regards, Gary

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I'm freakin' out, man.

lol - it's lovely to see tgace and michaeledward in harmony - and I agree with with tgace said as well.

 

[Makalakumu]

I wonder how President Bush's views on the second amendment differ from Senator Kerry's? It seems that they both favor waiting periods, registration, and gun bans ect...

 

[GAB]

Hi All,

I don't think you will see any one retire(judge) not is this time and place, I would be very surprised.
That is a life time appointment and the perks are grrreat. Where else would they have that kind control and power. In reality the better part of them are political animals in sheeps clothing...
They are the real Sheepdogs.

Regards, Gary

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Hi All,

I don't think you will see any one retire(judge) not is this time and place, I would be very surprised.
That is a life time appointment and the perks are grrreat. Where else would they have that kind control and power. In reality the better part of them are political animals in sheeps clothing...
They are the real Sheepdogs.

Regards, Gary

On the contrary. You can expect up to four will retire. Rehnquist and Stevens are in their eighties. O'Conner is 74. Ginsberg is in ill health having had cancer (which also killed her mother).


Regards,


Steve

 

[Cruentus]

Paul,

While neither Bush or Kerry will do anything via legislation concerning abortion, we should be aware of the state of the Supreme Court. The next President may well be required to appoint 2 or 3 justices.

I predict, if Kerry wins the election, we will soon hear of retirement plans for Justice O'Connor, Justice Rehnquist, and quite possibly the ever spry Justice Stevens.

Review carefully what President Bush said about the Dred Scott decision in the third debate, and you will recognize that he plans to submit justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Mike

As far as guns go ... Kerry may work to re-impose the assault weapons ban.

I caught on C-Span yesterday a very right-winged radio show out in PA. They were interviewing a Republican Senator from out there. It was a very pro-Bush interview, however a small snipit of the interview seemed to hit the nail on the head in regards to Supreme Court Justices.

The Senator was downplaying the importance of voting solely on the issue of supreme court justice appointments because the idea that these guys will retire within the next 4 years is a MAYBE. Sure, a bigger maybe then 2 elections ago, but a maybe just the same. Even though Reinquist was just diagnosed with Cancer, the particular Cancer he was diagnosed with was removable with a 90% cure rate (according to this show); so when they reported that he would be back on the bench Monday, they ment it. As old as some of these justices are, none have indicated retiring within the next 4 years. This will probably be a more pressing issue next election, but for this one there are other more pressing matters to deal with.

Now, lets say this assessment is wrong and one or more supreme court justices have to be appointed within the next four years. In regards to abortion (the bigger issue in voters minds this election when refering to these appointments), nothing will change. According to this interview, they assess that Bush isn't going to appoint a religious fanatic to the position who is going to do anything to change Roe V Wade for a couple of reasons. For one, there isn't enough public support to overturn the decision, and if any attempts were made, the evil democrates (their words not mine) would legiselate around the decision, preventing any real implication of any drastic pro-life decisions. Plus, it was mentioned that the Roe V Wade decision was supported by many republicans in the 70's, because no matter what canidates say to get the pro-life vote, they know that this decision prevents underground and unsafe abortions.

Now, this was their assessment...some points I agree and disagree on. Where I think the nail is hit on the head is that (if I remember correctly) although the supreme court can overturn decisions, the legislative branch can legislate around those decisions. Because of this, it is highly doubtful that any drastic measures will be taken regarding abortion or gun control without strong public approval. The pro-lifers have Bush on a pedistal for the partial birth abortion ban not realizing that it was supported by many pro-choicers for it to get past the senate floor for one, and for two partial birth abortions are highly rare occurances. Therefore, it wasn't drastic pro-life legislation, otherwise it would have been shot down by the legislative branch before Bush got his photo opp. to sign anything.

On gun control, this same idea applies to Gun Control legislation, IMHO. With enough people standing up for our 2nd amendment rights, no drastic legislation or case law will get passed the legislative branch. For the last 30 or more years, this conjecture hasn't been proven wrong as I can see.

This is good news for me because I can focus on other more pressing issues (namely how Bush has drastically failed our country on security, economy, social welfare, civil liberties, education, and environment).

Oh, and one last thing on Kerry regarding gun control. Just because he voting record has been consistant with his party in the Senate, and just because he has worked with "anti-gun nuts" within his party on other unrelated issues, that doesn't mean that as president he is going to be a flamming liberal who will take away our 2nd amendment rights. Kerry's personal behavior and things that he has said doesn't indicate to me that he is totally on page with anti-gun control people, even if he has their support this election. In reality some of the things he has said in the debates and while on the campaign trail indicates to me that he isn't going to touch the issue. As far as the silly assult weapons ban is concerned, although Kerry used this to hammer Bush on the campaign, I don't think he will be doing anything to reinstitute that sort of ban. This is based off of things he has said, coupled with the fact that he will be focused on other issues such as war, economy, and homeland security. Now, the fact is I disagree with Kerry's voting record among other things in regards to gun control, however, there are more pressing issues that need to be considered when looking at the office od the presidency

In conclusion:

Regardless of how either president feels on the issue, their are a lot of checks and balances that any abortion or gun legislation has to go through before they can become a reality. This means that on these very sensitive subjects, public approval is a must. Because of this, I feel that it is foolish to vote only on a presidential canidate's stance on these and other issues, because the executive office isn't directly responsable for them. Sure, take them into consideration as part of the entire package, but to solely focus on one or two issues not completely controlled by the executive branch when considering someone for President is a lopesided way of viewing our canidates.

:supcool:

 

[Xequat]

Yeah, that's actually one advantage I see that might come if Kerry wins...the checks and balances. During the debates, if I remember correctly, they were asked if there would be a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices, and though neither really came out and said yes, they pretty much implied it by talking about the issues that concerned them. The thing is, if Bush gets in again, then his Justices will probably be approved easily and are likely to be more extreme right-wing, whereas if Kerry gets in, then the Republican Congress will fight any extreme left-wingers as much as they can, so maybe we'll get some more moderate or Constitutionalist judges in there. Just a thought.