Parties can change their character slowly and almost imperceptibly over time. To see how it has changed you have to look back quite a way and do a comparison. Can you imagine any Republicans today voting in favor of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993? I can’t.
As a refresher, while attempting to kill President Reagan, John Hinckley shot his press secretary Jim Brady in the head. Brady survived, but he has been confined to a wheelchair ever since the shooting and his speech is slurred. The handgun bill named in his honor (and passed through his advocacy) created background checks for the purchase of handguns from federally licensed dealers and it prohibited the sale across state lines of guns to felons, the certifiably insane, people dishonorably discharged from the military, and other groups. Needless to say, the NRA opposed the bill and reacted to its passage with Palin-like delusion and paranoia.
Nonetheless, the following Republican senators voted for the Brady Bill.
Kit Bond of Missouri
John Chafee of Rhode Island
Dan Coats of Indiana
William Cohen of Maine
John Danforth of Missouri
David Durenberger of Minnesota
Slade Gorton of Washington
Mark Hatfield of Oregon
Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
Jim Jeffords of Vermont
Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas
Richard Lugar of Indiana
Bob Packwood of Oregon
Bill Roth of Delaware
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina
John Warner of Virginia
Sens. Bond, Hutchison, and Lugar are still in the Senate, but none of them would dare today to cross the NRA and the lunatic base of their party and vote for gun control legislation. I can’t imagine Republican senators from South Carolina or Virginia or Texas voting for handgun regulations in this political climate. Most of the people on that list could never hope to win the nomination to represent the modern Republican Party.
I’m not even a fan of federal gun control laws and I might have joined Pat Leahy in opposing the Brady Bill. My point here isn’t to argue for or against that particular bill, but to demonstrate how much the Republican Party has changed since 1993.
The roll calls on NAFTA and the Family & Medical Leave Act are also instructive.
Speaking of gun control, it’s probably the issue I’ve evolved the most on.
You mention “Federal” as an important qualifier. Do you read the 2nd amendment as leaving these things to the states which is why you’re not a fan? Or is it some other reason?
It’s a combination of things.
I think gun laws have a hard time creating appropriate regulations for differing communities. What’s needed in Montana is not what’s needed in Boston. And some urban areas go so far as ban handguns completely, which is unreasonable when you live in a violent neighborhood with lots of burglary. So, while it’s not a constitutional issue for me, I agree with Vermont’s approach to gun laws more than New York City’s.
It’s also an issue that hurts Democrats all over the country and makes it easier for the Republicans to stymie the things I really care about.
If I were a politician, I would struggle on these issues more than almost anything else because I know what I think about most issues.
It’s probably a good idea to make sure people who have say, a history of violence not get guns in Montana OR Boston.
yeah, it sure is. but is that the federal government’s responsibility?
What if states refuse to do it themselves?
The reason gun laws are so hard to craft properly is because regulations are ineffective if they aren’t uniform, but they’re unnecessarily onerous and politically toxic in many places if they are uniform.
Trigger locks and background checks seem like reasonable uniform rules. But what if Manhattan or DC want to basically outlaw handguns completely? What if Vermont or Alaska want to do basically nothing?
Philly wants gun control laws so strong that I think they impact my right to protect myself, and the rest of state wants almost no regulation at all. Regardless of what PA does, the guns come up from Virginia anyway.
In my opinion, it’s better to have lax regulation than to have a patchwork that is easily undermined because of a lack of uniformity.
I don’t think I have a constitutional right to bear arms because I am not a part of any militia or the national guard, so I see this as a political question. As a political matter, I think I should have the right to own a handgun in every jurisdiction in this country. I don’t think the federal government has the right to tell me much about my purchase or ownership of that gun unless I attempt to buy it out of state or transport it out of state. But I’m willing to have a background check and I don’t mind if the FBI does that check on the behalf of the gun shop where I make the purchase.
Again, because I don’t think I have a constitutional right to own a gun, I am not hung up about certain restrictions and requirements. But because I don’t think the federal government should decide the rules surrounding guns (because that is a constitutional question) I am reluctant to grant them that power.
I’m basically indifferent so long as I am free to protect my home and, if I’m not, I consider it something I disagree with politically and not a violation of my basic or human rights.
More or less how I feel, except about “protecting myself.” If someone comes to my house for some shit, take it all, and leave peacefully. There’s a reason for insurance.
I’ve been robbed two times at gun point, and I never felt the need in the future to own a gun. I’d feel even less safe with one than without one. Hell, the one time in New Orleans that I was robbed, my first thought was, “Damn, poor bastard must have needed that $50 more than I did. How sad…”
Not to mention that if it were my home, I would not have the ability to shoot and fire a gun at a human being. I can’t say how my primal self would react, but right now, I can’t even imagine it.
You remind me of the father in Annie Hall who says ‘so what if the maid is stealing from us, she’s from Harlem and she needs the money.” And the mother says something like, “you’re a moron.”
I am not calling you a moron. But there’s nothing wrong with protecting what you rightfully own from thieves. And that is really somewhat beside the point because home intruders can shoot you or rape you whether or not you’re willing to let them take everything you own to avoid any unpleasantness.
Oh, yes, I know. I don’t disagree with self-defense. I just think there’s a way to be robbed with compassion and forgiveness. At least, that’s how I have to react, because I don’t like guns, and I don’t think I could shoot a person even if they were at the other end with a gun themselves. It’s just not in my nature. But, again, this could totally change if I were put in that situation. I don’t think anyone truly knows until it happens.
Either way, as far as muggings go (outside of the home), most self-defense people say that the very last resort should be “fighting back.”
Hey, I respect your pacifism. But, remember, it has its limits.
It’s funny, because as a Boy Scout I fired off plenty of guns, and I’m comfortable with them in general. However, in the context of firing them at someone else, something just flashes.
Do you even own any guns? I feel like such a stereotype haha; hippie liberal owns no guns, hates them, and knows almost nothing about them. On the flip side, I oppose most regulation of them in the context of American society because of our deep love for them.
I won’t divulge our level of armament. Let’s just say that I don’t intend to invite anyone to take the silverware.
“…home intruders can shoot you or rape you whether or not you’re willing to let them take everything you own to avoid any unpleasantness.”
It appears that in both cases of the previous commentor being robbed at gunpoint, that they made it out of the situation relatively unscathed. Do you feel that outcome would be more or less likely if they had resisted via pulling out their own gun?
While I’m not even too far off from your position, let’s not ignore that if you attempt to protect yourself via firearm, the odds of the situation escalating to violence skyrocket.
Sure. Using violence or the threat of violence to protect yourself and your belongings can lead to…violence. So can breaking into someone’s home or attempting to rob them on the street.
Ah. See, I’ve come to accept that America is fucking nuts on the issue of “gun rights.” We’re obsessed with them, we refuse to regulate them, so our only hope is education.
The best way to combat gun violence relies on the culture. Our culture humps gun rights to the point that if one suggests a gun safety on the trigger they’re a socialist.
Anyway, if restrictions on guns are to have any of the desired effects, they have to be federal. I mean, I could understand this argument for a country like Pakistan. Somewhere with little stability needs to give the citizens the ability to “fight back.” But America? Pffft. I don’t think gun control can be successful regionally, or locally. Prohibition in conservative counties is more of an annoyance than anything. Just buy it outside of the border and bring it across the border.
So meh, I’ve gotten to the point where I believe, in America, education is the key. Common sense gun control still makes sense, but overall I’ve gotten quite conservative on this issue.
Most debate about guns revolves around the 2nd Amendment. For me the key to the 2nd amendment is the explanatory phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
That tells me that the rationale for the federal government not being allowed to pass any law restricting the right to bear arms had a practical purpose that served the national defense. It wasn’t a human right ‘endowed by our creator’ like the right to free speech, or a lawyer, or a jury of our peers. They should amend the 2nd amendment, but until they do, the Feds can’t unreasonably restrict my right to bear arms. I thinks states and municipalities are free to do so under the constitution. But, because it’s left to local communities to decide what the law should be, many restrictions are totally ineffective and others go too far.
The one thing I am pretty confident about is that the Federal government doesn’t have the constitutional right to do a whole lot about handgun regulation. When it comes to military-grade ordinance, sure, they have to have a say. I have no problem with Assault Weapon Ban. And I support having a federal database that can be tapped by states and municipalities to aid in their background checks. If you’re selling your guns across state lines, then laws mandating safety are certainly constitutional.
I think the Brady Bill was well-intended and it’s saved a lot of lives. But I can’t say that I think it’s been very effective in the bigger picture and it certainly has aroused a lot of blowback that’s had significant political costs. I probably would have voted for it. But, overall, I haven’t seen a solution I like for setting uniform rules that passes our present, flawed, constitutional system. And without uniformity we don’t get guns off the streets, we just create a distorted market for them that create internal smuggling routes.
I can’t imagine Republican senators from South Carolina or Virginia or Texas voting for handgun regulations in this political climate.
That goes for Democrats, too. Jim Webb comes to mind.
The RKBA is clear, and has now been defined as a personal right. OK, I’ll go with that. You may keep and bear arms.
However, this has NOTHING to do with your ability to bear arms in a concealed manner. This has nothing to do with your ability to own thousands of rounds of ammunition. This has nothing to do your ability to own quick-change multi-round magazines which allowed Steven Chu to kill 32 people with 2 guns. This has nothing to do with the gun-show loophole. This has nothing to do with your ability to purchase 400 guns at a single time, which can be resold to felons later. This has nothing to do with your ability to do many things with guns.
The NRA has successfully confused the RKBA with these other issues, which are not a part of the 2nd Amendment, but have been conflated into it by a very successful sales campaign.
Those of us who do not like the carnage of today’s society believe that these false rights need to be curtailed to slow the carnage down. You have the RKBA, but not these other fake “rights”.
The recent SC case clearly left a huge hole for the regulation of these fake rights.
As a lifelong Democrat, I would vote for Republican Mark Hatfield, if he were still in the political arena.
Hatfield was voted by his peers to be the 6th most-respected Senator.
Hatfield voted in 1990 against authorizing military action against Iraq in the Gulf War, one of only two members of his party to do so in the Senate.
He is currently a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at George Fox University in Newberg OR.
Fine man, I was proud he was my Senator.
Booman without you I think I’d be losing my grip on reality right now.