In past elections, a candidate’s stance on gun control (or more rightly, gun rights) had a profound impact. Gore probably lost the 2000 election (at least several states, anyway) based upon the fact that he supported nationwide handgun registration and licensing. Certainly John Kerry’s record of voting for every single gun control measure in his senate tenure cost him a lot of votes. Many of the Democratic freshman elected in 2006 owed their victories to having a pro-Second Amendment tilt.

Writing in Human Events, Joe Babbin says that for 2008 it’s time for Republicans to make it a wedge issue:

In Hillary Clinton’s book, “Living History,” she writes about her outrage at Congress’ failure to, “…close the so-called gun-show loophole and to require child safety locks on guns.” She goes on talking about how Congress lacked the will to, “…buck the all-powerful gun lobby and pass sensible gun safety measures [which] made me think about what I might be able to do, as a senator, to pass common sense legislation. In an interview in May, I told CBS anchor Dan Rather that, if I ran for the Senate, it would be because of what I learned in places like Littleton — and in spite of what I had lived through in Washington.”

Clinton never did anything about gun control as a senator. What would she do as president? Does she believe that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms, or does she favor confiscative laws such as the District of Columbia law the Supreme Court will rule on in the Heller case?

We know the answer. But it’s up to the Republican candidates to flush her out of the tall weeds. This is an important issue to a great majority of Americans across the map, in Blue States, not just Red ones. It could be the wedge issue that decides the 2008 election.

So far, the Republican candidates have been making it a wedge issue only amongst themselves. It might be a tad early to make it a national issue such as abortion and social security are.

Besides, if Giuliani or Romney win the nomination, their lack of credibility would make it a moot point in the national debate. Is there really a difference between their positions and that of Hillary’s or Obama’s? Nope. Gun control can only be a spot of contention if the two parties’ candidates disagree about it.

My current prediction is that if Giuliani (or Romney) is the nominee, the Democratic candidate will slaughter them in the presidential election because a large percentage of Republican voters will stay home, particularly Evangelicans (abortion) and gun rights supporters.

If the Supreme Court rules favorably for an individual right to keep and bear arms, that could force the nominee of both parties to debate the issue. Again, if — on the Republican side — that’s Rudy or Mitt, there is nothing to debate; no difference in position.

It just might be vital that Thompson or McCain win the early primary season or Republicans have nothing to run on, nothing to differentiate themselves from Democrats. And yes, McCain isn’t perfect on gun rights but he’s much better than Rudy or Mitt.

Certainly the Republicans cannot claim to be the party of “fiscal responsibility” after six years of a pork free-for-all and a ballooning federal budget. About the only thing they have left is abortion and rejection of government run health care. The third leg, somewhat wobbly, is how a candidate plans to wrap things up in Iraq; cut and run or orderly withdrawal as events there dictate. Therefore gun rights could be the important fourth leg to their platform.