Alphecca

Don't Relax Yet!

Interesting article from the Kansas City Star:

The national debate over gun rights, for decades among the most searing and divisive of political issues, appears to be all but over in Congress.

That means that the assault weapons ban, a signature achievement of gun control advocates that expired last year, probably will not resurface anytime soon.

Conversely, congressional leaders and the Bush administration haven't put a priority on efforts to expand gun rights.

“There's a perception that Washington is not the place to take the debate at this moment,” said Saul Cornell, a historian who is director of the Second Amendment Research Center at Ohio State University. He said that politicians on both sides see little advantage in pressing the issue.

Democrats, desperate to regain their appeal to middle America, are moving away from the party's long identification with gun control, much to the relief of many beleaguered Democrats in states like Missouri.

“It's a loser,” Rep. Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, said of gun control.

Yes it is. And I believe it hurt Democratic candidates in the past few elections. But -- unfortunately -- there is a limit to how far "swing voters" will support new bills that PROTECT gun rights:

“There is a potential for backlash,” George Connor, a political scientist at Southwest Missouri State University, said of the Republican two-step. “They can't go too far.”

Connor pointed out that Republicans basically have already “gotten everything they wanted. They wanted to protect the rights of gun owners and average citizens, which they've done. … I don't think they're going to push any farther than they already have.”

While Bush and many Republicans voice support for a bill that would give gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits, the bill is not a priority of Republican congressional leaders.

So have we reached a sort of balance? I don't really think so. I think the issue is splitting red and blue states in much the fashion that the just past election polarized voters in general. We see the usual suspect states such as California attempting to pass more and more control, whether it's a ban on .50 caliber guns and trying to pass ballistic fingerprinting or the New York City council trying to pass regulations that would penalize gun stores located anywhere in the nation.

Conversely, we see other states passing "shall issue" concealed carry laws, laws protecting ranges, and in some states, allowing a homeowner greater leeway in defending themselves from burglars and other invaders.

One problem for those of us on the pro-gun side of the aisle is that the anti-gun states tend to be populous, with the result that they have a lot of congressional districts in The House. A future election where the Republicans lose power and the Democrats take over could easily tip the scales back towards much more gun control measures flooding Congress.

This is one reason why I wish Republicans would moderate themselves on other issues that polls have shown the public really isn't all that interested in, such as a constitutional amendment against gay marriage or even Social Security reform. Pushing those hot-button issues too much could alienate a lot of voters in the future and we could wind up with a Democrat back in the White House.

I suppose it shows that I'm nearly a one-issue voter since I don't want moderation on gun rights, just on any other legislation that could endanger gun rights by reinvigorating the liberal base of the Democratic Party. Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly. I fear that any position that pro-gun Republicans take on other issues that could cause them to lose power is a threat to the successes we've had WITH gun rights.

Does that make me a bad person?

Posted by Jeff Soyer at February 23, 2005 07:46 AM