Nothing kills Democratic candidates' prospects more than guns. If it weren't for guns, President-elect Kerry might now be conferring with incoming Senate Majority Leader Daschle.
Since the Brady Bill took effect in 1994, gun-control efforts have been a catastrophe for Democrats. They have accomplished almost nothing nationally, other than giving a big boost to the Republicans.
I was at an IDPA shoot the week the national election and the shooters were gathered around chatting waiting for the competition to start. I tend to think of shooters as being predominately Republican, so I was a little surprised when one of the shooters said "If there were a Democrat who was truly for gun rights I'd vote for him!" I was then shocked to hear more than a dozen of the other shooters (everyone there) immediately agree. Apparently a lot of people interested in gun rights only vote Republican because they are forced to.
Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:29 AM PDT BAKER CITY (AP) - A group of rural Democrats is hoping state Democrats will agree to add more explicit support of the right to bear arms to the official party platform.
The gun control issue costs them dearly at election time in parts of Eastern Oregon, Baker County Democrats said.
The county party has drafted a resolution that it hopes will be taken up at the state party platform committee when it meets this weekend in West Linn.
The resolution states, in part, "The Democratic Party of Oregon resolves as follows: To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms ... as an individual right not granted by the government but rather guaranteed by the government.... The Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of this right."
Baker City Democrat Chuck Butcher said he wanted to submit "a clear resolution without a lot of hedging, and frame it in language that could pass overwhelmingly, if the argument is presented correctly."
The current Republican party platform in Oregon says, "We adamantly oppose all attempts to undermine our constitutional right to bear arms in a manner of our choosing without license or other permission from the government."
"A lot of people have told us that if the Democrats would shift on the Second Amendment, they'd rejoin the party," Raffety said. "I think our party needs to take a look at what the grassroots people want. There's too much direction from Washington, D.C., and not enough asking what people really feel."
Oregon Democratic Party executive director Neel Pender said he thought the resolution sounded "pretty reasonable."
" I don't know any Democrats who don't have a healthy respect for the Second Amendment, " Pender added.
Let's be honest here: The Democratic Party is in serious trouble on the national scene.
Not only did Bush beat the Democrat challenger by millions of votes this time, but the Republicans increased their margin of control in both houses of Congress. A quick look at the presidential election result map shows that the national Democratic Party has lost touch with most of America, and appeals almost exclusively to people living in the urban Northeast and the Pacific coastline. (Note that, on county result maps, even Blue States like California are red except for the densely populated coastline.)
Americans don't hate the Democratic Party. Democrats got elected at the state and local levels all over the Red States. It's only on the national level that they are rapidly losing ground.
The Democrats had their best success on the presidential level in the last half-century with Bill Clinton. Clinton ran as a "New Democrat"... A moderate willing to consider, even coopt, traditionally Republican ideas. While he was inclined to actually govern somewhat to the left of what he promised in his campaign, circumstances held that inclination in check, and he was able to repeat his New Democrat campaign for successful reelection.
Al Gore attempted to follow Clinton's example, and ran as a New Democrat in 2000. His campaign cannot be considered a failure, as it did win a slight plurality of the popular vote.
An influential minority of Democrats were troubled by the New Democrat approach. They complained that Al Gore and George W. Bush seemed like carbon copies of one-another in terms of political positions on major issues. When Bush managed to eke out an electoral college victory in 2000, these far-left Democrats claimed that the Democratic losses were due to "failure to get our message out".
The truth is that Al Gore wasn't as good at veiling the far-left "message" as Clinton had been. The message did get out. And most of America didn't like that message. This was emphasized when, in 2004, the Democrats nominated a far-left candidate in John Kerry, who was beaten despite the Republican incumbent's many weaknesses and a huge campaign by the Democrat-supporting organizations nationwide.
To get back into contention, the Democrats need to reconsider their message. To get back into touch with mainstream America. To become a viable alternative to the Republicans in the eyes of people outside of the megatropoli.
There is one issue the Democrats could adopt which would not only counteract their Big City Elite public image, but also appeal to a very large part of the Republicans' traditional base.
There are over 80 million gun owners in America. A lot of them vote Republican first and foremost because the national-level Democrats are seen as "gun-grabbers". And this perception is not without grounds, as urban Democrats from the Northeast and West Coast always lead the charge whenever new gun control laws are proposed.
A considerable number of these same gun owners vote for Democrats in state and local offices, because many of the Democratic candidates at those levels are not seen as gun-grabbers.
Without the support of gun owners, the Republicans would not be dominating national politics today. Yet the Republicans have done almost nothing to earn this support. In fact, the Republicans have "sold-out" the gun owners a number of times. It is only the fear of "gun-grabbing Democrats" that keeps gun owners voting Republican in national elections.
All the Democrats have to do to turn the political tide is to win over part of the gun owners. You are not going to do that by having a far-left candidate with an unbroken history of supporting every gun control scheme that has come before him dress up like Elmer Fudd and claim to support the Second Amendment.
The Democrats need to seriously coopt the Republicans' undeserved position as the gun-rights party by actively supporting a national "Vermont Carry" law.
Supporting a VCN law is not just a political winner for the Democrats. It's in the finest Democratic tradition of supporting civil rights and equality.
An increasing number of gun owners are not the stereotypical macho, white, male, hunter and sportsman type. In post-911 America, many "soccer moms", Liberal dads, and other people with no "Rambo" inclinations have become all too aware that people can and do die while on the phone with police dispatchers.
VCN is a feminist issue. Shouldn't Democrats be in favor of allowing women the tools to defend themselves against violent men?

VCN is a child welfare issue. Shouldn't Democrats be in favor of allowing parents the means to defend their children from criminals or terrorists?
VCN is a racial equality issue. Many of America's "gun control" laws were passed specifically to keep minorities helpless. Surely the Democrats should want to rectify this.

VCN is a gay rights issue. The very fact that homosexuals will have the right to discreetly carry guns will make homophobes think twice about "bashing" anyone.
Think about it. Shouldn't the Democrats have been the gun-rights party all along? Why let the Republicans, who often seem to support only the right of straight, white, suburban, upper-class males to own expensive "toys" claim the title?

Contact your fellow Democrats and your Democratic representatives in government and urge them to support Maryland Shall Issue CCW!