John Kerry is a hunter and pro-gun so what do you guys think about him? I am a republican but I do not like George W. Regardless, I like to see a president who is pro-gun. Thanks!

From www.johnkerry.com :

Quote:

---

Increased Gun Safety

John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place. He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.


Kerry Stands Up to NRA's Divisive Agenda in Letter to Blacklisted Americans


October 30, 2003

For Immediate Release
Washington, DC -

Democratic candidate for President John Kerry wrote a letter to the hundreds of individuals, celebrities, authors, religious organizations, and businesses blacklisted by the NRA, to join him in standing up to the divisive agenda of the gun lobby and standing up for gun safety.

In a letter to the many prominent Americans put on the NRA�s publicly advertised �anti-gun� list, Kerry said, �The NRA�s blacklist is the modern day equivalent of Richard Nixon�s enemies list. This blacklist is precisely the politics of division and distortion that have turned too many people away from participating in the process. We can�t let the NRA scare people into silence. I know what it�s like to be targeted by the NRA, and I refuse to sit idly by during my campaign for the presidency while they push their divisive agenda on America and slander those who stand up for gun safety.�

Kerry also promised to continue his fight for gun safety during his campaign for the presidency: �Why should those on the NRA blacklist courageously risk their livelihoods when Democratic candidates for President aren�t willing to stand up against powerful interests and risk their political capital? I believe that standing up for gun safety is important, and I refuse to be a candidate who retreats from the issue out of political fear or one who tries to have it both ways. I�m a hunter and a gun owner, but I�ve never gone hunting with an AK-47. I�ll stand up to the NRA when they call law enforcement officers �jackbooted thugs� or stand in the way of common sense efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons and children. The Democratic Party will never be the choice of the NRA�and I�m not looking to be the candidate of the NRA.�

The full list of individuals being blacklisted by the NRA can be found on the website www.stopthenra.com The Kerry campaign is also asking Americans to sign the petition started by the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom march and join the NRA�s blacklist.

Here is an example of the letter:


October 30, 2003

Jerry Seinfeld
Shapira/West Associates
141 El Camino Drive, #205
Beverly Hills, 90212

Dear Jerry Seinfeld,

As I scanned the pages of the New York Times this morning, I couldn�t help but notice the new ads taken out by the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March to stop the NRA�s assaults on mainstream American values. As you may know, the latest of these attacks features a blacklist with your name on it.

Though it is not surprising that the NRA would publicly advertise a 19-page list of individuals, celebrities, authors, religious organizations, and businesses it describes as �anti-gun,� it certainly is infuriating. The NRA�s blacklist is the modern day equivalent of Richard Nixon�s enemies list. This blacklist is precisely the politics of division and distortion that have turned too many people away from participating in the process. We can�t let the NRA scare people into silence.

I know what it�s like to be targeted by the NRA, and I refuse to sit idly by during my campaign for the presidency while they push their divisive agenda on America and slander those who stand up for gun safety.

Why should those on the NRA blacklist courageously risk their livelihoods when Democratic candidates for President aren�t willing to stand up against powerful interests and risk their political capital? I believe that standing up for gun safety is important, and I refuse to be a candidate who retreats from the issue out of political fear or one who tries to have it both ways. I�m a hunter and a gun owner, but I�ve never gone hunting with an AK-47. I�ll stand up to the NRA when they call law enforcement officers �jackbooted thugs� or stand in the way of common sense efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons and children. The Democratic Party will never be the choice of the NRA�and I�m not looking to be the candidate of the NRA.

We can stand up for safety in America and keep guns out of the hands of children and felons and still respect the Second Amendment of our nation�and if the NRA wants to blacklist us for that position, then I am ready to wear it as a badge of honor.

If you share my feelings, I ask you to join me in my campaign for the presidency, as I stand up for the values we hold dear, and a politics that elevates�not denigrates�the public discourse in America.

Warm Regards,

John Kerry

---

Sounds like he's trying to position himself to appear to want 'sensible' gun laws in order to appeal to the moderates. Make no doubt, he's anti-gun and in bed with the Bradys.

BTW: You should post this in the Politics forum. It will get more comments and is really the better place for it.

-Steve

He reminds me of a Kennedy the way he presents his self. I wonder how pro gun and hunting he really is. Remember Clintons first campaign, he said he was a avid duck hunter but he had never purchused a license or duck stamps.

He's a democrat/socialist - enough said. They're all anti-gun somewhere, somehow...

From http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm:

John Kerry on Gun Control

Democratic Party shouldn't be for the NRA

Q: Do you find it necessary to kill animals for photo-ops?

A: I don't think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA. And when I was fighting to ban assault weapons in 1992 and 1993, Dean was appealing to the NRA for their endorsement, and he got it. I believe it's important for us to have somebody who is going to stand up for gun safety in America and make certain that we make our streets safe, our children safe, and not allow people to get assault weapons in America.
Source: CNN "Rock The Vote" Democratic Debate Nov 5, 2003

Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill

Q: Your views on gun safety.

KERRY: There's a story in today's Washington Post that says that Democrats are going to run away from the issue of gun safety. I don't think that we can get elected nationally if we are not prepared to stand up against powerful special interests. Too many die each year from guns. I am for the assault weapons ban. I'm for the Brady Bill.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003
------------

I added the bold emphasis to the quotes above. More info can be found at the listed link above.

Remember, "gun safety" is the new code phrase used by the gun control advocates for "gun control". They know "gun safety" is a more palatable phrase to use. Notice how Kerry tried to connect "gun safety" with "assult weapons" in the quotes above.

Just my two cents worth. I do agree with Steve above that this topic more properly belongs in the political forum so I'll end my comments here.

-Bob F.


'As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
--- Tench Coxe, "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution", The Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

With such a lively and well-attended 'Gun Ownership & Politics' forum, you posted this here?

It will get MUCH more discussion on the above board.

George
P.S. ANY politician who says they support 'existing gun laws' is trying to avoid a position on the effectiveness and rationality of those laws.

John Kerry sounds like some people from Safari Club International.

Mike

Anyone who assumes that a Republican candidate will protect their gun rights, would be very wrong! GWB will protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits, but the rest of us -- forget it.

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Gun-control senators cheer Bush
Feinstein, Schumer welcome president's stance on firearm ban

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 22, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty
� 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A pair of U.S. senators noted for their avid support of gun control are praising President Bush for his backing of the continuation of a weapons ban the lawmakers pushed through Congress 10 years ago.

"[Sens.] Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., welcomed the announcement that President George W. Bush supports the reauthorization of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, which is set to expire in 2004," says an April 16 statement published on the California Democrat's website.

In a letter to Bush, the senators said, "As the original authors of the assault-weapons ban in the Senate and the House, we strongly believe that military-style assault weapons have no place on America's streets and should be banned.

"In 1994, we fought hard to win passage of the original ban, and shortly after Congress returns from the spring recess we plan to introduce legislation that would reauthorize it," the letter continued.

Feinstein and Schumer were responding to comments attributed to Bush by White House spokesman Scott McClellan. WorldNetDaily reported that McClellan, in responding April 13 to a question posed by Knight Ridder newspaper, said the president "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

To win more converts, ban supporters inserted a 10-year sunset provision into the original 1994 legislation. That means the law is set to expire in September 2004, just weeks before the general election. But Feinstein and Schumer said they planned to introduce new legislation to "reauthorize the ban" � probably for good, critics believe.

According to Feinstein's statement, the new bill would "reauthorize the prohibition on manufacture, transfer and possession military-style assault weapons, while protecting hunting rifles and other firearms" and "close the clip-importation loophole, which prohibits the sale of domestically produced high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue to bring them into the country by the millions." The senators said Bush indicated his support for closing that loophole during the 2000 presidential election.

At the same time, the new bill would "preserve the right of police officers and other law-enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi-automatic assault weapons."

"We welcome your support and look forward to working with you to gain swift passage of this legislation," the senators said. "With your assistance, we will be able to pass legislation to continue the ban and help make America's streets safer."

Gun rights advocates are confused by Bush's stance.

"Why would George Bush want to help Democrats?" said Larry Pratt, executive director of the 300,000-member Gun Owners of America, based in Springfield, Va. "The issue, when it was opposed by most Republicans, cost Democrats the House in 1994 and the White House in 2000."

He also sees a domestic-security issue that is at stake. "Banning the homeland-security rifle is pure Washington, but anti-Constitution and anti-homeland security," Pratt said.

The White House repeatedly failed to respond to questions from WorldNetDaily over whether Bush would sign the Schumer-Feinstein bill should it make it to his desk.

But some lawmakers say gun owners should not have been surprised by the president's comments.

"President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue," said Rep. Ron Paul, in his weekly column posted online April 16.

Nevertheless, Paul wrote, Bush's stance could cost him dearly next year. "Given [the] trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration's position may well cost votes in 2004," he said.

Paul, a staunch gun-rights supporter, said the administration's position on so-called "assault weapons" while claiming it is gun-rights oriented is hypocritical.

In making his point, Paul quoted Georgetown University professor Robert Levy, who recently offered this comparison: "Suppose the Second Amendment said, 'A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"

"Tortured interpretations of the Second Amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed," said Paul.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the country, gun-rights activists are working to overturn similar gun bans.

In Connecticut, gun owners and gun dealers filed suit last week in state Superior Court in a bid to have the state's 1993 "assault weapons" ban overturned, the Connecticut Post reported.

Plaintiffs, the paper said, claim the state's Department of Public Safety can't administer the law in a uniform manner. The suit says two separate buyers purchased the same rifle, but when they attempted to register them on successive days, one buyer was allowed to keep his while the other's was seized.

The paper reported that Ralph D. Sherman, a West Hartford lawyer, said last week that the suit is asking the court to void the regulations while ordering DPS Commissioner Arthur L. Spada to neither enforce them nor arrest anyone for possessing weapons previously deemed illegal.

Also, the suit seeks termination of any DPS databases tied to the gun ban.

"They are phony regulations," Sherman � chairman of Gunsafe, a group of state firearms owners � said. "The Department of Public Safety has changed its mind several times on what these regulations are supposed to be. It's a major challenge to an administrative agency that's not following correct procedure."

In February, legal scholars from The Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank, filed suit against the nation's capital, charging its gun-control restrictions were unconstitutional.

Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies, and Gene Healy, senior editor, joined by two other D.C.-based attorneys, argued in their complaint that "the Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such as a handgun ... within the home."

However, they charged, officials in D.C. "enforce a set of laws [that] deprive individuals, including the plaintiffs, of this important right."

Other pundits decry what they see as gun-control laws that stretch the boundaries of reason.

Dave Kopel, research director for the Independence Institute, has criticized the city of Denver's efforts to criminalize squirt guns. And in January, New York City officials sought to toughen existing bans on toy guns, because, they say, toy guns are often used by criminals and have become a threat to police.

With such a lively and well-attended 'Gun Ownership & Politics' forum, you posted this here?

It will get MUCH more discussion on the above board.

George
P.S. ANY politician who says they support 'existing gun laws' is trying to avoid a position on the effectiveness and rationality of those laws.
===============
I think here should be fine, as George & co. have turned the political forum into their own personal toilet.

Sorry to post this topic in the wrong forum (too many of them) and thanks for the discussion! I am not much a of political person but somehow the subject crossed my mind this morning. I think I will vote for George W. just to keep the rep. party going strong. Thanks!