I've heard quite a bit of talk among Republicans saying that Jim Webb has no stance on Second Amendment issues. This couldn't be farther from the truth, although their confusion is understandable given the lack of information about it on the campaign website.
Jim Webb recently released a statement saying clearly that as a Senator he will oppose efforts to further curtail the rights of gun owners. This is said with no ifs ands or buts. No new gun control measures, period.
Webb actually has a concealed weapon permit and spoke out at a recent debate in support of Virginia recognizing more permits issued by other states. This is not one of those guys who claims to be pro-gun and pro-hunter but actually turns up his nose at handgun owners and practical self-defense.
While George Allen and Jim Webb are in agreement about most issues facing gun owners and hunters, there is one major difference between these two candidates in the area of hunter's rights. Habitat. The League of Conservation Voters gave Allen a 5% score for 2006. He has one of the worst records in Washington for protecting wildlife habitat. Meanwhile, Jim Webb is passionate about preserving habitat and ensuring that there will land and game for future generations to hunt.
No wildlife, no hunting. Without public lands, properly managed, funded and protected from development, there will be no place for most American hunters to hunt. Even national parks which do not allow hunting often help hunters by fostering wildlife directly adjacent to national and state forests or private tracts that do allow hunting. If you are passionate about preserving the tradition of hunting in America then it is not enough to support the Second Amendment. You can stand there with a rifle in your hand all day long but if there isn't any land to shoot on and there isn't any game to shoot at then you are not hunting.
This is why those who will cast their ballots based mostly on the rights of gun-owners and hunters should vote for Jim Webb. George Allen only takes us halfway there. With Jim Webb, you're getting the same solid support for the Second Amendment plus a reliable vote for conservation in Washington.
Besides, wouldn't you like to stick it to Diane Feinstein and Ted Kennedy by ensuring that a member of their own caucus will be helping to kill their idiotic gun control measures? When the Democrats regain control of the Senate (whether or not it's this year) we've got to have gun-friendly voices in the Democratic Party who will kill proposals in committee which would otherwise just barely pass on a party-line vote. Throwing the support of gun-owners behind Republicans exclusively is a strategy for a deferred defeat. There's no way that one party can maintain a monopoly on power forever. Putting all of our eggs in one basket has been a very foolish practice. Sending Jim Webb to the United States Senate would be a wise means of ensuring an effective vote for the Second Amendment no matter who is in power.
6 comments:
Pardon me if I ask for some evidence.
Where is this posted: "... no ifs ands or buts. No new gun control measures, period." from Jim Webb?
Jim,
Webb put his positions in print on a flyer that his campaign has been handing out. I don't know if it's on the campaign website somewhere but I have a .pdf of it that the campaign gave me when I asked them for clarification on 2nd Amendment issues.
The exact wording is as follows:
"A gun owner himself, Jim believes that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is an expression by law-abiding citizens is an expression of their legitimate right to self-defense and in the Senate will oppose efforts to further curtail the rights of gun owners."
That is the complete wording and is not followed by a list of exceptions for "closing loopholes" or any of that ususal sort of BS. Hence my statement that there were no ifs ands or buts.
I have a copy of the .pdf that I can email to you on request.
Sure, send it to me. I'd like to see it.
It's clear why Allen's supporters are sounding desperate over Jim Webb's pro-gun position. Without that issue, they will lose the votes of many hunters and gun owners who, deep down, know that Allen and his fat cat allies in the Senate don't have a clew about fighting an effective war on terror, and don't do enough to protect the econonic well-being of average Virginians.
Jim,
I don't see any contact information in your blogger profile. If you will email me at jack [dot] landers [at] gmail.com then I will be happy to respond with that .pdf for you.
Mule,
The more I've thought about it, the more I've come to really believe that for voters who are going to cast a ballot solely on the basis of hunters' & gun owners' rights, Jim Webb is the logical choice. If a voter doesn't care in the slightest about hunting and is only interested in the right to bear arms, then I could see how it could be a toss-up.
Of course, that is a pretty small group of people. For my own part, while gun rights and hunting rights are huge issues for me, those aren't the only things that drive my vote. If a candidate was excellent on those issues but also supported, say, torture of POWs, then I might have to vote against him. So I could see how someone who was strongly both pro-torture and pro-hunter would end up voting against Jim Webb.
Apologies for the delay, had ton's of work stuff. I'd appreciate the email, sent to email atsign jim-patrick period com
You're right that gun rights aren't a litmus test; but then there are few single issues that really (truly) are.
Post a Comment