Dems and Second Amendment

I switched to the Nevada debate at the end of Comanche Moon last night just in time for Tim Russert's direct question to the three Dem candidates asking their thoughts on the Second Amendment.

At least Clinton and Obama realize that flogging gun control is a losing proposition and admitted as much. John Edwards still thinks the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has something to do with hunting.

Clinton would like to reinstate the "assault weapons ban", even though the guns in question are not assault weapons and the law was not a ban on the guns but a ban on further manufacture of them, and even though the US Government conceded that the ban had no measureable effect on crime and its sunsetting did not increase crime.

Illinois is one of only two states that does not allow concealed carry of handguns by civilians under any circumstances, so perhaps Obama can be given a pass on his ignorance. At least he is smart enough to know he doesn't know everything; there is hope he may eventually study the Second Amendment's context and intent and realize the error in his absence of thinking on the subject.

Governor Bill Richardson is the only prominent Democrat since Hubert Humphrey that I'm aware of who understands the what and the why of the Second Amendment. Too bad he dropped out.

That leaves the Republican candidates. Ugh.

Mike Huckabee is pro-gun rights, not because it's politically expedient but because he understands what it's about. And he's a hell of a nice guy. Too bad he's a religious fanatic who would like to reshape the Constitution to fit his own superstitions.

Rudy Guliani is little more than an opportunist, and--rare for a Republican--anti-gun rights. At least he doesn't appear to be a religious fanatic.

Mitt Romney... Well, hell. What can anyone say about Mitt the Twit? Whatever anyone says, if it's not accurate when said, it probably will be if you wait a few minutes.

That leaves John McCain, the Old Man of the entire bunch. In terms of understanding the nuts and bolts of government, he may be best qualified, if only because he's been around longer. (Put your swords back in their scabbards. I said may be.)

But, wait a minute! We don't want an experienced person this time! We want CHANGE!

So does every bum on the sidewalk.

The scary side of wanting a complete outsider is, we may get another Jimmy Carter, a good-hearted guy who tried to re-invent the wheel every day but Sunday.

What this country needs is a President with the force of will and the moral standing to change the direction of government while using the existing tools and mechanisms of government efficiently and with understanding of the day-to-day basics of how our government works.

Many of the organizations I belong to and support will be urging me to vote a straight pro-gun ticket, as usual. I can't do that. The country may not be able to afford that.

Now comes the rumored possibility that Michael Bloomberg will enter the race as a third-party candidate, inheriting the crown of thorns sported by Ralph Nader and perhaps having the same effect: siphoning enough votes from the Democratic candidate to ensure the election of another Republican incompetent. (Not that Republicans are, by definition, incompetent; it just seems to work out that way. And, this year, with the possible exception of John McCain, it is that way.)

We live in interesting times. I hope we, as a nation, can survive them.