From the Amendment II Democrats blog:
I am a progressive Democrat and a gun-rights advocate. There, I said it.
Being a progressive pro-gun Democrat means that you oppose any attempt to ban handguns, .50-caliber rifles, or any form of semi-automatic firearms. It means that you take any attempt to impose new gun legislation with a few grains of salt, whether it's a proposal to weed out prospective gun owners using a "no-fly list" or an initiative to conduct background checks on any private gun transaction, even from father to son. But being a progressive pro-gun Democrat also means opening yourself up to a barrage of puzzled looks, accusations of being a covert Republican, and questions such as "How could you possibly be an anti-gun-control Democrat?"
So maybe it's time for me to explain where I came from, how I got here, and where I think my fellow Democrats should be heading on Second Amendment issues as opposed to our current trajectory. And a lot of it boils down to the choice between embracing change or seeking the dubious security of the status quo.
I grew up in a fairly conservative family, my childhood values shaped by my mother's Pennsylvania sensibility and my father's East Texas tenacity. We always kept hunting rifles and shotguns in the house, but my brother Steve and I were taught at an early age that these guns were not toys. My first experience with actually firing a real rifle (as opposed to a gas-operated BB rifle for plinking) was when I was probably 8-9 years old. My dad took Steve and I to a ravine in the woods around Gilmer for a little target practice. I can't recall if I hit that can in the ditch, because the report of that rifle was so loud, and none of us wore any hearing protection. Needless to say, I preferred the quiet of a BB rifle over the noise of Dad's hunting rifle. But we learned about guns from our father in a carefully supervised setting, just as millions of children across America learned how to shoot from their parents.
At an early age, I realized that I was never cut out for hunting – I felt guilty about killing any animal purely for sport, and my experience with trying to hunt drove me to embrace wildlife as I grew up, to realize that animals have a right to exist for their own sake, that they have a right to their own habitat in which to make their homes. This conviction was further reinforced by my wife, Ginny, who has the most gentle heart in any person I've ever met. She rescues stray cats, nurses wounded birds back to health, and feeds pigeons, grackles, and sparrows in the park every chance she gets. Her care for wildlife in general has demonstrated to me that although humans may be at the top of the food chain in modern society, we should not dominate wildlife, but instead respect wildlife and coexist with it.
This is not to say that I have anything against hunters. I respect the American tradition of hunting if it is done in a responsible manner, the hunter becoming one with his or her surroundings, enjoying the fresh air, the rustling of the tree branches, and the companionship of his or her fellow hunters. I despise poaching, loathe canned hunts, and do not look kindly on shooting at game from a helicopter. And although I understand the desire to display the head of a majestic buck over the mantle, I believe that any game should be harvested for food and possibly pelts, never hunted purely for sport. But that's just me.
Simply put, I will never do anything to endanger America's heritage of hunting and shooting sports, and I will enthusiastically support efforts towards responsible wildlife management and conservation, including efforts to halt and reverse the disastrous effects of man-made climate change. And I also understand that protecting our forests and wildlife is linked with the preservation of our rights as gun owners. All that I ask of America's hunters and sport shooters - all that I ask - is that they respect my rights as an American to keep and bear arms that are not designed for any explicit hunting or sporting purpose.
I cannot say it enough. The Second Amendment may guarantee our hunting and sporting traditions, but it never mentions either. It merely affirms that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, since the security of a free state is dependent upon a well-regulated militia made up of the citizens of the state. That means you, me, every hunter, every sportsman, every law-abiding American who is reading this. That's why I founded Amendment II Democrats in the first place. Although I originally envisioned Amendment II Democrats as a home for progressive Democrats who feel as I do on gun rights, it has evolved into a coalition of conservative, moderate, and liberal Democrats alike who all have something to offer each other in terms of supporting our Constitutional rights and our collective identity as Democrats.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden have the power to effect deep and profound changes in how America does things. They can do wonders for the economy, public education, civil rights, protection for the environment, health care, Social Security, Medicare, and ending the occupation in Iraq. But there's a catch. They have to persuade Americans to elect them first. And that's where the gun issue comes in.
Back in April of this year, James Oliphant of the Washington bureau of the Chicago Tribune gave me a little space on his blog where I voiced my concern that Democrats on Capitol Hill "cannot afford to let themselves be identified as 'gun-grabbers'" if they want America to change for the better. It remains my fervent affirmation that changing the Democratic Party's view on the Second Amendment is the surest way to enable Democrats to bring change to America.
But when Barack Obama delivered his historic acceptance speech at Invesco Field in Denver at the end of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Paul Helmke of the Brady Center was on-hand to keep watch over Obama, playing up Obama's statement, "don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." That's not change; that's more of the same.
Ray Schoenke of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which identifies itself as a "gun rights" organization, has stated that Obama "gets it" on the Second Amendment; but at the same time, Schoenke himself is on the record stating that "no one needs an assault weapon." That's not change; that's more of the same.
When Third Way policy wonks, in their "Taking Back the Second Amendment" policy memo, state that "The problem that Democrats have on the gun issue has far less to do with the typical policies they espouse than the rhetoric they employ," thus implying that they can sell Americans the same failed gun policies by putting them in a shiny new box with a pink bow on top, that's not change; that's more of the same.
After telling various elected Democrats that he wasn't taking anyone's guns, Barack Obama then told Field and Stream magazine that he considered a ban on semi-automatic firearms to be "common-sense gun control." That's not change; that's more of the same.
And let’s be clear about what "more of the same" means in this context. The same pathetic policy on gun control cost the Democratic Party control of the House and Senate in 1994. It cost Al Gore his home state of Tennessee during the 2000 election; had he only won Tennessee’s electoral votes, he would have won the election outright without waiting for the Florida debacle to be resolved.
I say this because I want a Democrat in the White House. I say this because I want Democrats to retain control of the House and Senate.
But I will continue to reach out to the Democratic community at large with a view towards changing the terms of the gun debate within our own party. That's the change we need.
I will support conservation efforts, including "no net loss" regulations to prevent loss of forests and wildlife habitat, to ensure that hunters and sportsmen can continue their traditions. That's the change we need.
I will work hard to oppose and defeat any proposed legislation that imposes a new ban on the manufacture, sale, and/or possession by law-abiding Americans of any .50-caliber rifle. That's the change we need.
I will work hard to oppose and defeat any proposed legislation that imposes a new ban on the manufacture, sale, and/or possession by law-abiding Americans of any form of semi-automatic firearm. That's the change we need.
I believe that we can address the problems of gang violence and gun-related crime without throwing our Constitution under the bus, especially in light of the DC v. Heller decision by the Supreme Court this year. And the election of a growing number of pro-gun Democrats to the House and Senate has reaffirmed this belief. For those who want a fair and effective health care system, for those who want their children to have the best public education system in the world, for those who demand clean air and clean water, for those calling for an end to deregulation and runaway economic collapse, allowing me to legally own a semi-automatic AK without legal hassles or a security clearance may seem like a very small price to pay.
So maybe it's time that we, as Democrats, started having a long talk about how to reconcile our views on gun legislation, how to prevent Republicans from using guns as a "wedge issue" against Democrats, and how to subsequently consolidate our gains in DC by retooling our party's gun policy.
It's never too late to start.