pageok
pageok
pageok
Even More Bad News for Anti-Gun Lobby:

1. Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi has endorsed John Murtha for Majority Leader, according to The Hill. Murtha is a a southwestern Pennsylvania Democrat with a long-standing A rating from the National Rifle Association. Hoyer is a Maryland Democrat, with a long-standing and well-deserved F rating, although he has sometimes worked to procure federal military contracts for Beretta USA, a firearms manufacturer in his district.

Murtha is, of course, known as a prime advocate of cut-and-run in Iraq strategic redeployment to Okinawa, whereas Hoyer is merely a supporter of cut-and-run a rapid exit from Iraq, but not necessarily to Okinawa. And it is even more obvious that Pelosi's preference for Murtha has much to do with her desire to take revenge on Hoyer (a rival Democratic leader) and absolutely nothing to do with Murtha's pro-gun voting record.

Nevertheless, it the odds have increased that the Senate (with usually pro-gun Harry Reid) and the House (with inflexibly pro-gun John Murtha) will both have Majority Leaders who will be receptive to the argument that the gun control issue is a loser for the Democratic party.

2. The Rocky Mountain News (Nov. 11) chalks up the winners and losers of the 2006 election. First on the list of losers is "Gun control advocates. Democrats see this as a radioactive issue for them, have to wait for now."

3. In The New Republic, Thomas Edsall suggests that pro-gun "pragmatic, culturally conservative, libertarian" Democrats from the Rocky Mountains hold the key to the party's salvation.

4. During election-night blogging on this site, and in a follow-up on National Review Online, I suggested that about half the R to D shifts in the House had involved the election of pro-gun, Blue Dog Democrats, while the other half had involved the replacement of pro-gun Republicans with anti-gun Democrats. Gun Owners of America points out that several seats in which one Republican replaced another Republican (in Michigan, Nebraska, and Ohio), which I had not written about, resulted in a strongly pro-Second Amendment Republican replacing a mediocre Republican. Accordingly, my estimate that the pro-gun side lost a total of 14 votes in the House should be revised to a loss of 12.5.

The loss still leaves intact the pro-Second Amendment majority in the House. More significantly, the fact that fervent gun control advocates Charles Schumer and Rahm Emanuel won a Democratic congressional majority by deliberately recruiting so many pro-gun Democrats suggests that the party has outgrown the mistakes of the Clinton/Columbine era, when party leaders lost the Congress (1994) and then the Presidency (2000) on the mistaken belief that gun control was a popular issue.

UPDATE: Here's the opening of the Monday issue of National Journal's Hotline, which was delivered to subscribers at approximately 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time:

"What signal is Pelosi sending by backing Murtha over Hoyer? It depends on how you choose to view the maj. leader's race. -- Viewed through the prism of Iraq, Pelosi is embracing her party's lefty protest crowd. But on many other issues, from abortion rights to gun control to ANWR, Murtha is decidedly to the right of Hoyer (check out their Nat'l Journalratings ). Pelosi's move could endear her to the Heath Shulers and Brad Ellsworths of the 110th, who are leery of backing the liberal Speaker. It could also help Hoyer among those Blue Dogs, who are itching to say they're bucking Pelosi.
A few commenters on this post, and on some of my previous posts, continue to push that the Democrats' new-found respect for the Second Amendment had nothing to do with their wins on Tuesday, or on their governing plans. National Journal, a well-respected source of the conventional wisdom of Washington, obviously disagrees.

Samael (mail):
Please tell me you didn't actually use the term "cut and run." Come on now.
11.13.2006 1:07am
Ragerz:
As a pro-gun Democrat, I hope you are right that Democrats have learned their lesson on the gun issue.
11.13.2006 1:24am
HankP (mail):
Thanks for the laugh. First for the phrase "cut and run", which shows a simplicity of mind not often seen these days, at least by serious people. Second for the obsession with gun laws. I think you are the only commenter I've seen who has even commented on the issue, I don't remember seeing anything about it mentioned by anyone else during the election. Here's the funny thing: it didn't, and doesn't, make any difference. The Republicans have screwed up so bad with Iraq and corruption that aside from monomaniacs no one else cares about the issue anymore, at least not enough to change their vote.
11.13.2006 1:42am
Jim Hu:
Those serious people are the ones who are busily cooking up rationalizations to not call a thing by its proper name. Just before the election, noted right winger Michael Kinsley wrote:
Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to "assum[e] primary responsibility for securing and governing their country." Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of American forces.

Older readers may recognize this formula. It's Vietnamization—the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."
11.13.2006 1:56am
Tom9239:
A sensible observation about guns, marred by a lame-assed Rovean talking point.

Yep, y'all were right, gun control isn't a winning issue, the Dems appear to have learned that. Now, please oh please continue stridently opposing withdrawal from Iraq.
11.13.2006 4:00am
donaldk:
Like it or not, to the electorate (IMO) "stay the course" is a loser. Politically, it means nothing, because it will be off the radar by 2008.
11.13.2006 4:35am
donaldk:
Like it or not, to the electorate (IMO) "stay the course" is a loser. Politically, it means nothing, because it will be off the radar by 2008.
11.13.2006 4:35am
jgshapiro (mail):
Talk about election spin! This post brings to mind the parable that if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Well, if all you care about is guns (as Kopel's present and previous posts suggest), every election result looks like a referendum on gun control policies.

I bet most of the people voting for Democrats on Tuesday (or in the primaries that preceded the general election on Tuesday) had no idea they were endorsing gun rights or were condemning gun control when they voted. I bet most of them thought they were voting for 1) more executive branch oversight, 2) less congressional corruption, 3) a different strategy in Iraq (not necessarily cut-and-run, but surely including shitcanning Rumsfeld), 4) a smaller deficit, 5) a sensible immigration policy, 6) less influence for the Religious Right (see Terry Schiavo), and/or 7) a different course on any of a number of other prominent issues.

In fact I barely even recall anyone (besides Kopel) discussing gun rights or gun control. If you try hard enough, you can spin that as proof that gun control has receded as a goal of legislators, but less partisan eyes would interpret that as proof that it no longer swings elections in the way it used to, so neither side chose to emphasize it.
11.13.2006 7:13am
buddingeconomist:
Thanks for posting on this. Good information.
11.13.2006 8:02am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Yes, someone has to track these issues for me because I'm interested, but not enough to do all the heavy lifting myself. Thanks.

Ordinarily I think these "thank you" posts are sort of pointless, but otherwise I feel like I'm leaving you to the trolls. You DO seem to attract them...
11.13.2006 8:15am
Roger:
Murtha is, of course, known as a prime advocate of cut-and-run in Iraq, whereas Hoyer is merely a supporter of cut-and-run.

Others have commented on this, but I really would expect more out of this site. That things like this aren't unexpected any more is a sign that the once-great Volokh Conspiracy really has gone downhill.
11.13.2006 9:16am
Mr L:
Talk about election spin! This post brings to mind the parable that if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Well, if all you care about is guns (as Kopel's present and previous posts suggest), every election result looks like a referendum on gun control policies.

Don't be dumb. The point is that the Democrats quite specifically set aside gun control this campaign, even though it's factored into pretty much every election in the past decade or so. In fact, a lot of key candidates -- as pointed out in the post -- are strong supporters of the Second Amendment. That's pretty incredible for a party that usually has trouble letting dissenters on it's sacred cows even speak at the conventions, let alone get its full support.

And that implies (a) that they know that gun control's a loser at the ballot box and (b) that it's not worth sacrificing the votes for. Which is pretty much Kopel's point.
11.13.2006 9:41am
Kevin P. (mail):
Roger, what great term would you replace "cut and run" with? If you support the unilateral disengagement and withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, how would you describe it?
11.13.2006 9:43am
GWLawEugene:

Murtha is, of course, known as a prime advocate of cut-and-run in Iraq, whereas Hoyer is merely a supporter of cut-and-run.


Statements like this using empty, politically-charged phrasing in an article on their gun control views (with no other references to Iraq) is at best intellectually sloppy and removes credibility from your post has...if I'm wrong, what point does the "cut and run" sentence make that's germane to the rest of the post?
11.13.2006 9:47am
footballfan1:
Cut and run. Nice. Pray tell me, with Mehlman leaving the RNC, will you need another conduit for your talking points? Perhaps you can tap Coulter and you two can draft some really inflamatory rhetoric.
11.13.2006 10:04am
Rex:
This is like a bad parody of a Kopel post.
11.13.2006 10:08am
Sebastian (mail):
What's so bad about "cut and run"? If you're advocating we withdraw from Iraq, I think that's a fairly appropriate means of describing what you want to do. It's retreat, no matter you look at it. Only this time, unlike with Vietnam, they will follow us.
11.13.2006 11:34am
Sebastian (mail):
Okay, maybe cut and run is a bit too harsh as applied to Murtha. He suggested that we "redeploy" to Okinawa. We can finish the whole war from there, according to John Murtha.
11.13.2006 11:35am
Henry679 (mail):
"If you support the unilateral disengagement and withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, how would you describe it?"

Undoing a grotesque error in judgment? Facing reality and putting wishful thinking to bed? Not throwing away American lives for a quixotic cause?

Or "the unilateral disengagement and withdrawal of US forces from Iraq."

You know, a few weeks ago, when some posters made not-so-thinly veiled accusations that the Conspiracy was conspiculously silent about the legislation concerning detainees, some of its memebers were shocked--SHOCKED--that posters might believe that they were keeping their mouths shut because they were lackeys for this Administration.

Kopel's mindless recitation of Rovian cant has done nothing to undermine this concern about intellectual honesty.
11.13.2006 12:14pm
KeithK (mail):
I assume Kopel mentioned "Cut and run" in reference to Murtha to make it clear he isn't happy with Murtha as majority leader. But on the gun issue specifically, he is saying that Murtha would be a good choice.

As Mr. L ponted out, the point of the post is not that everything is about gun control. Kopel is pointing out the impact of the election on the gun control issue.
11.13.2006 12:16pm
te:

Murtha is, of course, known as a prime advocate of cut-and-run in Iraq,

I enjoy seeing the 2nd amendment analysis but when you throw in stupid comments like this, all you do is align yourself with the the lard-ass recruits of the 101st Keyboard Brigade.

I don't know your bio, but I am just going to assume that you've never been involved in any sort of combat - other than the op-ed pages - unlike Murtha who has bravely sacrificed for this country.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
11.13.2006 12:30pm
JosephSlater (mail):
Use of the phrase "cut and run" displays a pre-Nov. 7 mindset.
11.13.2006 12:50pm
Pete Freans (mail):
State and local governments keep me awake at night, not federal action. Often ignoring their own right to bear arms clauses in their state constitutions, many state and local governments are agressively diluting those protections with knee-jerk legislative responses to the inevitable (and often cyclical) spikes in crime. While I sympathize with local law enforcement at the front-lines of crime, as well lower-income communities that are caught in the cross-fire, the federal and state right to bear arms provisions cannot not be treated as an archaic theory or a misguided colonial suggestion. An argument proposing that the right to bear arms is historically obsolete is a dangerous course of action which can be equally waged against all constitutional clauses, regardless of its protections.

Why does "cut and run" strike such a cord with readers? Murtha and Hoyer believe that the US should cut its losses and exit Iraq forthwith which is exactly a "cut and run" strategy. Are the words words "disengagement" or "redeployment" less threatening? Use those words instead, it makes no difference.
11.13.2006 12:54pm
Henry679 (mail):
"Cut and run" was used by Bush shills to denote irresponsibility, if not outright cowardice, by their opponents.

Please don't act dumb--there is enough genuine dumbness in the world.
11.13.2006 1:02pm
jgshapiro (mail):
Don't be dumb. The point is that the Democrats quite specifically set aside gun control this campaign, even though it's factored into pretty much every election in the past decade or so.

Heed your own advice. So did the Republicans. It wasn't on voters' list of priorities, so no one spent any time talking about it. But that hardly means that 1) Democrats have abandoned gun control, 2) Republicans have won the debate on gun control, or 3) the public was expressing a view on gun control on November 7th.

Neither party spent any time talking about banning abortion either. Do you think that is because a majority of the GOP no longer favors banning it? Or because Democrats have won this fight? That is one interpretation, but it would be equally blind to reality.

Politicians talk about voters' priorities if they want to win. That doesn't mean politicians have ceded their positions on non-priority items, nor does it mean that voters are expressing an opinion on non-priority items when they choose their representatives.
11.13.2006 1:05pm
uh clem (mail):
Mr Kopel,

If you want to support the Second Ammendment, find a law that infringes that right and get it overturned in a court of law on 2nd Ammendment grounds.

There's certainly enough money and lawyers aligned on your side to persue such an action. So why isn't anybody doing it?
11.13.2006 2:07pm
Captain Holly (mail):
I don't know your bio, but I am just going to assume that you've never been involved in any sort of combat - other than the op-ed pages - unlike Murtha who has bravely sacrificed for this country.

Ahh, the tired but reliable old "chickenhawk" argument.

So, using your logic, anyone who has not seen combat is not allowed to criticize John "Abscam" Murtha.

Does that include the millions of military personnel who served during peacetime?

How about all those rear-area types who are in Iraq today, but who never leave the base and never see "real" combat?

Just where do you draw the line?
11.13.2006 2:50pm
Robin (mail):
HankP - You should get out more; you are incorrect. I make voting decisions based on 2nd Amendment. The Dems tried to make the point that they were not making a point of pushing gun control. Candidates like Jim Webb were the evidence.

uh clem - The danger of getting an adverse ruling is high. I believe no one on either side really wants to push a court case because a ruling against them would be catastrophic.
11.13.2006 2:59pm
Henry679 (mail):
Robin, if that is the case then 2A supporters deserve the death by a 1000 cuts they get. What if Thurgood Marshall &the NAACP had the same approach?

My god, man-- we've got the best Supreme Court in many, many decades for such an issue. Could get get better? Possibly--and possibly not, if Stevens hangs on for another two years (and I am not just referring to a Democrat picking the next justice--I have no confidence whatsoever that a McCain or Guiliani appointee would be much better on this issue).

Get the right case and go for it. If we lose, come back later, and take the fight to the state constitutions (anybody remember them?)

The idea that the 2A can bestow individual rights in some circuits (e.g. the 5th) and only "collective" rights (sic) in others (e.g. the 9th) is abhorrant. Why in hell do we have a federal judiciary if not to resolve these issues?
11.13.2006 3:10pm
te:

Just where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at people who have never been anywhere close to actual combat impugning the honor and bravery of those who have, especially when it is done in such a flippant, off-hand way.

There may be plenty to criticize about Murtha's positions. That's fine, lay it out.

But calling an honorable former soldier a coward (and, let's cut the bullshit, that's what the phrase "cut and run" does) is despicable.
11.13.2006 3:13pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
"lard-ass recruits of the 101st Keyboard Brigade."

te... please never comment on someone else's rhetoric again.

"You should be ashamed of yourself."
11.13.2006 3:15pm
te:
Chapman

So you are standing up for the rights and dignity of all the greasy-fingered volunteers of the 101'st Keyboard Brigade?

Super. Are you going to be designing their uniforms, too?
11.13.2006 3:22pm
Greedy Clerk (mail):
Kopel's credibility has never been very high around here. I think what is left of it just went out the door. What "cut and run" has to do with Murtha's stand on the 2nd Amendment is beyond me. But the use of the phrase itself evidences political hackery at the highest level. Further, and as noted, that Kopel would call a genuine war hero a coward is despicable. (And as another commenter said, that is exactly what this "cut and run" nonsense is.)
11.13.2006 3:28pm
John M. Perkins (mail):
In the two heavily contested Democratic held races in Georgia [which I understand were the two heaviest targeted Democratic seats in the nation] both imcumbants, Marshall and Barrow, aired pro-gun positive ads as probably their main ad.

"Death Tax" not "cut and run" was the focus of the opponent's ads. BTW, both districts were redistricted in 2005 specifically to beat Marshall and Barrow. And both opponents, Collins and Burns were former U.S. House members, Burns in Barrows, Collins newly districted in.
11.13.2006 3:45pm
Captain Holly (mail):
I draw the line at people who have never been anywhere close to actual combat impugning the honor and bravery of those who have, especially when it is done in such a flippant, off-hand way.

Oh, I see. Kinda like Bill Clinton organizing anti-war demonstrations while safely in Britain.

So you are standing up for the rights and dignity of all the greasy-fingered volunteers of the 101'st Keyboard Brigade?

Why not? Don't they have First Amendment rights, too?

You still haven't answered my question: Just who in your opinion is eligible for membership in the 101st Keyboard Brigade?
11.13.2006 3:49pm
te:

Just who in your opinion is eligible for membership in the 101st Keyboard Brigade?

Well, I think Chapman has the contract to design their uniforms, but maybe you could chair the base wives committee.
11.13.2006 3:56pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
And my point whizzes right past him... I think Kopel provides an important service around here by keeping all the trolls occupied so that others can post in peace.

I almost wonder if this post got linked from one of the more... unsavory corners of the web.
11.13.2006 3:57pm
markm (mail):
"In fact I barely even recall anyone (besides Kopel) discussing gun rights or gun control." Then you don't know many people that truly care about gun rights. Candidates might have avoided talking about "gun control", but most of them had past records on those issues, and I know many people who looked them up. Most anti-gun candidates had the sense to keep their mouths shut about it this election, but we still knew who they were. Truly pro-gun-rights candidates didn't need to make a big deal about it, because we definitely knew who they were.
11.13.2006 4:04pm
Sam:
te: "I draw the line at people who have never been anywhere close to actual combat impugning the honor and bravery of those who have, especially when it is done in such a flippant, off-hand way."

Does that mean that you can't be an anti-war protestor and insult the manner in which we have conducted the war unless you are a combat veteran? How could someone be upset about accidentally bombing civilians unless they've been in combat?
11.13.2006 4:09pm
te:

And my point whizzes right past him

Thank you for providing an excellent example of the mindset of the 101st Keyboard Brigade. Keyboarders love to fantasize that they are engaged in actual combat with "points" - instead of live rounds - whizzing by. Bravo. Spot on.

Sam - I don't think you can "insult" the manner in which we have conducted the war. I don't know what you mean.
11.13.2006 4:21pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
"the salient feature of a story, epigram, joke, etc.: to miss the point."

Calling our discourse "combat," even metaphorically, is an overstatement. You make an ass of yourself, I attempt to correct you, you make a fool of yourself, I swat you down. At this point, you're no longer worth my time.
11.13.2006 4:46pm
Spartacus (www):
"Robin, if that is the case then 2A supporters deserve the death by a 1000 cuts they get. What if Thurgood Marshall &the NAACP had the same approach?"

They did, quite successfully. They splowly and cautiously pursued theuir battles, first pushing publci accomodation, then law school, and only quite late, acess to primary education. If Brown had been brought back in the early part of the century, Plessy would likely have been reaffirmed.

Pro gun groups have brought 2d amend challenges that were probably not politiclaly ripe for a 2d amend victory (see Silveira). But SCOTUS has consistently denied cert, probably bcs justices on either side were concerned about what the middle (O'Connuh, Kennedy, etc.) might do. Or just bcs they honestly didn't think them cert worthy. The Court may be the best one in years, but a pro-gun majority is still not a foregone conclusion, so the best litigation strategy woudl still be incremental.

But 2d amend. supporters have made significant strides legislatively and in the executive branch, which has adopted the 5th Cir. individual rights interpetation.

This issue is very important to a lot of people (&voters). Pity so many of those to whom it is not important nonetheless feel the need to chime in to attack Kopel. Keep up the good work, David.
11.13.2006 5:00pm
te:

Calling our discourse "combat," even metaphorically, is an overstatement.

You chose the metaphor, Captain Cntl+Alt+Delete

You make an ass of yourself, I attempt to correct you, you make a fool of yourself, I swat you down.

Behold, another field mark useful in identifying a member of the 101st Keyboard Brigade - a hyper inflated sense of one's abilities. You must be buckin' for a promotion.
11.13.2006 5:10pm
Captain Holly (mail):
Well, I think Chapman has the contract to design their uniforms, but maybe you could chair the base wives committee.

Incidentally te, what branch of the service were you in? Army? Navy? Coast Guard? Or are you one of those brave souls who always finds an excuse not to join, but still feels he has the right to criticize the military?

I joined the Marine Corps Reserve back in the fall of 1979, just after the Iranian hostage crisis started and just before the Soviets went rolling into Afghanistan. During boot camp we were all told we would be at war with Iran soon, and considering that President Peanut had authorized the ill-fated (and poorly planned) hostage rescue just a couple of months earlier, we believed it. And since my MOS was 0311 (infantry) if there had been a big war in 1980 I would have been on the front lines of it.

But since I didn't serve in combat, and more importantly, since I think John Murtha is a vain, self-serving ass, I guess I'm a "chickenhawk", even though I've done far more to defend this country in a time of need than you have.

But I admit I might be wrong. So tell me, te, where did you serve? Were you ever in combat? Receive any citations for bravery? What have you done to protect America, besides make snarky comments about people who support the war, and then run and hide behind John Murtha's war record?
11.13.2006 5:14pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
I did? Are you even reading my comments or do you have a stock of canned flames that you pull from at random?
11.13.2006 5:16pm
te:
Holly

Well if you did actually serve, then I regret to inform you that you can only be a member of the 101st Keyboard Brigade auxilliary.
11.13.2006 5:21pm
te:

I did?

Yep. Try reading my post.
11.13.2006 5:22pm
Colin (mail):
Te,

Please give it a rest. The "fighting keyboard" nonsense is almost as hackneyed (and hackish) as Kopel's gratuitous "cut and run" remark.

Sincerely,
Just about everyone
11.13.2006 6:20pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
Veterans, especially combat veterans, deserve our thanks and respect. But they're not sacred. If one does something cowardly, criminal, etc. someone has a right to point that out. (I'm not referring to the current dispute, just in general. I think using the term "cut and run" was somewhat snarky, but it isn't equivalent to calling someone a coward.)
11.13.2006 6:25pm
te:
Colin

And after you graduate from the 101st Fighing Hall Monitors, I'm sure they will have a spot for you, too.
11.13.2006 6:42pm
countertop (mail):
HankP

<blockquote>
Second for the obsession with gun laws. I think you are the only commenter I've seen who has even commented on the issue, I don't remember seeing anything about it mentioned by anyone else during the election. Here's the funny thing: it didn't, and doesn't, make any difference.
</blockquote>

Then you must not be getting out very much. The New York Times did a wonderful profile of John Tester today which pointed this out and the Washington Post had one on Heath Schuler making the same point before the election.

In fact, but for running to the right on guns with Webb (who, I've argued, is possibly the most vocally pro second amendmet Senator ever elected: "<b>I know first hand the importance of armed self-defense by law-abiding citizens as a deterrent to criminals, and in the long term, to would-be tyrants</b>"), Tester, and Ford the Democrats wouldn't have overtaken the Republicans.

Heck, Casey's race in Pennsylvania was the only one where they put in someone pro gun, where the gun control issue wouldn't have made an impact (though we could argue that by putitng Casey out to the right early on issues like abortion and gun control they were much better positioned to control the debate).

Actually, as I think about it, I've seen few commentaries in the MSM that <i>actually haven't</i> touched upon this issue.
11.13.2006 6:43pm
countertop (mail):
HankP


Second for the obsession with gun laws. I think you are the only commenter I've seen who has even commented on the issue, I don't remember seeing anything about it mentioned by anyone else during the election. Here's the funny thing: it didn't, and doesn't, make any difference.


Then you must not be getting out very much. The New York Times did a wonderful profile of John Tester today which pointed this out and the Washington Post had one on Heath Schuler making the same point before the election.

In fact, but for running to the right on guns with Webb (who, I've argued, is possibly the most vocally pro second amendmet Senator ever elected: "I know first hand the importance of armed self-defense by law-abiding citizens as a deterrent to criminals, and in the long term, to would-be tyrants"), Tester, and Ford the Democrats wouldn't have overtaken the Republicans.

Heck, Casey's race in Pennsylvania was the only one where they put in someone pro gun, where the gun control issue wouldn't have made an impact (though we could argue that by putitng Casey out to the right early on issues like abortion and gun control they were much better positioned to control the debate).

Actually, as I think about it, I've seen few commentaries in the MSM that actually haven't touched upon this issue.
11.13.2006 6:44pm
countertop (mail):
and yes, I know Ford lost.

But he ran to the right on guns and positioned the Democrats so that simply winning 2 of 3 races (along with Casey who was nominated in large part because of his 2nd Amendment stance and who didn't realize how much the Republicans would screw up when he was nominated) would get them over the hurdle.
11.13.2006 6:47pm
Therut:
Tester even supports opening up the Machine Gun Registry to newly manufactured machine guns. My kind of 2nd amendment guy. Hope it happens someday. I might then be able to afford one or three!!!!!!!!!! Let us hope being in DC does not affect his brain like it did Al Gore. Good ole Al the former NRA member turned tyrant.
11.13.2006 7:15pm
Mark F. (mail):
Kopel is good on gun issues, but unfortunately is a neocon fool on foreign policy.
11.13.2006 7:57pm
BladeDoc (mail):
I'm kinda bummed. I just bought an AR-15 hoping to make some money when the expected scary looking gun assault weapons ban second ed. passed. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to have fun with it at the range.
11.13.2006 8:26pm
jgshapiro (mail):
Actually, I thought Kopel is good on foreign policy but is a fool on guns. But I agree, he does keep the trolls (e.g., Chapman & co.) occupied.
11.13.2006 8:41pm
Hans Gruber:
Oh my. I have mixed feelings about what is the right course in Iraq, but "cut and run" is a more or less pat description of at least Murtha's plan. Politically charged phrase? Perhaps. Inaccurate? Not at all. And it should go without saying that this isn't necessarily a bad strategy. If, as many Dems contend, the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists and there is no hope of our military aiding the new Iraqi government, well, then "cut and run" would make perfect sense. As I understand it, this is more or less the consensus Democratic position. Chiding Kopel for not using your preferred phraseology is pathetic. Grow up.
11.13.2006 9:46pm
Miguel:
I was a member of the NRA for 1 year, and I am sympathetic for Kopel's views on gun control and cutting and running. I do believe that the right to defend oneself and others is part of the God-given right to life which is recognized in the seminal Declaration of Independence. But in the end, I could not support the NRA because if I am going to be single issue it is about the right to life of innocent unborn babies. The NRA will support any pro gun rights candidate, regardless of their position on the right to kill unborm babies. Hence, I could not support one such as Murtha or Webb, if they are "pro-choice" on abortion. The right to life is indeed the threshhold issue without which we could not have any other rights.
11.14.2006 12:17pm
Rich Rostrom (mail):
Some Democrats talked a pro-gun-rights line in the election. Will they actually stand up to the anti-gun militants that control the Democrat party machinery and dominate mass media? Will they vote to approve pro-gun-rights judges, or line up with the party to block them? If a Democrat wins in 2008, will they oppose anti-gun judges? Will they fight the stealth incorporation of the UN's anti-gun rules into US law? I doubt it. Many Democrats talk pro-life, too, but with a very few honorable exceptions they are rigidly pro-choice when the votes are cast.

Murtha demonstrated his character in the ABSCAM scandal, when he told the supposed Arab emissaries that he wanted to "do business", just not right then (thus escaping indictment). If Murtha is Majority Leader, it will not be for his moderation on anything; it's a sign that the Democrats' program for the next two years is all Iraq, all the time. This will be the most extreme, irresponsible, and destructive Congress in U.S. history. They will engineer disaster in Iraq. They will bludgeon the administration into collapse with continual "investigations". They will crush Congressional Republicans with ruthless partisan exploitation of majority status. And they will happily play to their delighted base with, among other things, new anti-gun laws.
11.16.2006 1:58am