« Parker: standing issue | Main | John M Browning Day? »
Parker and political campaigns
A column by Ken Blackwell.
"Presidential candidates whose views on the Second Amendment have been questioned should step up and detail their position on this issue. Mrs. Clinton, and Messrs. Obama and Edwards should explain their views. Mr. Giuliani should explain more fully why he opposes the D.C. gun ban but supports other restrictions on Second Amendment rights.
The American people expect leadership. Part of being a leader is answering the tough questions openly and forthrightly. On this issue, the court will do the heavy lifting. The candidates’ views, however, will certainly leave a mark."
Update: Alphecca has a related thought: the Repubs ought to use this as a wedge issue -- but if Rudy or Mitt win the nomination, that's going to be unlikely. (Via Instapundit).
Update, also via Instapundit: Prof. Sandy Levinson has similar thoughts.
"What is interesting is that almost none of the leading candidates in either party, right now, seems particularly "authentic" holding a gun. Any such picture of Hillary or Obama holding a gun would instantly become the "Michael Dukakis in the tank" photograph of 2007. Edwards, perhaps, has actually hunted and might not look ridiculous. Romney has been exposed as an utter fraud re his devotion to hunting, and somehow I doubt that Giuliani, who might well wish to shoot his critics dead (though he might prefer to personally strangle them), has in fact spent much time actually using guns. Perhaps Huckabee has done his share of hunting in the Arkansas pines (or wherever one goes hunting in Arkansas)."
He later adds--Fred Thompson is an exception.
Comments
The GOP has never been ballsy about using guns as a wedge issue. I have often said that gunowners are to the GOP what gays are to the Dems.
They want our money, they want our votes and grassroots organizational skills/support.
However, once the election is over, they want us to shut the hell up, get back in the gunsafe (closet), and not ask for anything in return for that support.
"After all, gunfaggotboy, where else are you gonna go?"
Well, Bill Richardson has as least given a face to a pro-RKBA candidate on the Dem side. He's a bit whack on other issues, but he's mostly right on guns.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at November 26, 2007 10:56 AM
I voted for Mr. Blackwell for Governor when he ran in Ohio and I was disappointed to see him mention Guiliani and Rommeny as "stanch" 2nd amendment supporters.
I was also disappointed to see no mention of Ron Paul, the stanchest supporter of the 2nd amendment.
Posted by: Doug at November 26, 2007 12:53 PM
All that talk about hunting! I'm tired of hearing about hunting. I don't hunt. I don't oppose hunting, but it's not for me. I am also a strong supporter of RKBA, for self protection and any other legal purpose. To me, it's mostly about self protection, not hunting.
I might look fine in a pic holding a deer rifle, but don't expect me to shoot a deer.
If we keep talking about the 2nd in the context of hunting, we're going to lose the battle.
Posted by: Jim at November 26, 2007 03:18 PM
He probably doesn't consider Paul, who by the way can benchpress 350 pounds, to be a major candidate.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at November 26, 2007 03:18 PM
No one is talking about the 2nd Amendment because the front-running candidates in both parties support it.
The only RKBA-friendly candidate I can see who actually has a shot at the Presidency is he-who-must-not-be-mentioned -- Fred Thompson.
Other candidates, the leadership of both parties, and of course the MSM hope he will just fade away so they can continue their ongoing assault on the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: mariner at November 27, 2007 11:32 AM