LATimes Whimpering Over Lack of Gun-Control Debate in Midterms

As can be expected from gun control advocates, they begin riding the corpses of those that died in the recent school shootings and then ponder the politics of gun-control.

EARLIER THIS MONTH, a conference was held on school safety in the wake of the murders of five Amish schoolgirls in Nickel Mines, Pa., and a series of other violent incidents.

President Bush was there, along with Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. There was a survivor of the Columbine shootings, a collection of school superintendents and security officials and representatives of the PTA. Discussion of how to prevent school violence touched on everything from the use of metal detectors to video games to anger management. But according to the Washington Post, one prominent element in the school shooting sprees was not even mentioned: guns.

Now, a conference on school violence that evades discussion of the role of guns is like a seminar on "Hamlet" that focuses on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern but makes no mention of the prince of Denmark.

Fascinating that the gun is posed as the primary actor and not the killer. Ignore the defense of the school that essentially left the children open to any casual passer by. Ignore that the killers are commonly emotionally or mentally broken. It's about the guns.

But let's skip onto the politics. I'll skip the manliness and posturing statements.

That's the goal of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. His vision of breaking the GOP lock on states such as Wyoming, Montana and Colorado has caused the Democrats to holster their olive branch, snatch the Winchester from the cold, dead hands of Charlton Heston and ride off under the leadership of Montana's pro-gun Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer to confront the Mountain West Republican Party. We should not be surprised if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton shows up at the 2008 Democratic Convention togged out like Annie Oakley, shooting cigars out of the mouth of her husband, the former president.

The NRA, for its part, has decided to meet the Democrats halfway, scurrying to put some of its $20-million campaign war chest in the pockets of 60 gun-friendly congressional Democrats across the country, according to the Wall Street Journal. The NRA ran the table in the 108th and 109th congresses, which allowed the assault rifle ban to expire, curtailed municipal lawsuits against gun makers and mandated the quick destruction by the FBI of gun registration data. The NRA has evidently concluded that it needs to hedge its bets in the event that the Democrats capture one or both houses of Congress on Nov. 7.

That's right, the NRA supports, in many cases, whoever has the best gun record. Funny how they do that. And it's the NRA that is supposedly moving and not the democratic pols, though I'd conjecture that there has actually been movement from both sides. There still is an obvious bias toward the Republican pols, but that is far more often due to Repugs supporting second amendment rights. Interestingly enough, you could also postulate that more pro-gun Dems means that the belief in gun rights is no longer a disabling posture in the Dem's tent.

As for Hillary shooting cigars from Bill's big mouth, I'd love to see that. Wouldn't be especially surprised if she missed and shot his nose off.

But in truth, some of the efforts by Democrats to rein in firearms during the Republican-led congresses have been more symbolic than real. The assault-rifle ban was, in essence, an aesthetic campaign against ugly and menacing-looking rifles that operated no differently from ordinary hunting rifles. State and municipal gun laws, which Democrats typically back, are no match for vigorous interstate commerce in top-shelf Glock and Sig Sauer handguns and cheap knockoffs, which Democrats are helpless to curb.

There is much that the new, gun-friendly Democrats can learn from experience as the abortion-friendly party. They can, for example, modify that catchy pro-choice slogan and proclaim the hope that firearms "should be legal and rare." Or how about a bumper sticker adapting the pro-choice battle cry: "If you are against guns, don't own one"?

Yep, it's that extremely powerful gun lobby that keeps down the local gun controls. Not that there is a strong local resistance against gun control. There are obviously soft spots in the big cities and in the most blue of the blue states.

Ross Baker misses a major point in the discussion. The gun owners of America are exceptionally wary of those politicos that don't support gun rights. Pelosi, Feinstien, Conyers, Schumer, etc are all seen as extreme threats to gun ownership, and seeing that they are heavily entrenched politicos the gun rights groups remain extremely active in politics.