Other
Nemerov
Articles:

Wisconsin and Its Lack of Self-Defense

More
Nemerow
Articles:

GUN CONTROL: THE ROAD AHEAD

By Howard Nemerov

December 1, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

With Democrats taking an overwhelming majority in Congress, and a historically anti-self-defense president in office, should gun owners surrender?

Each election, the National Rifle Association grades candidates on their voting records. If they consistently supported self-defense, the NRA assigned them an “A” grade. Less support resulted in grades of “B” through “D,” ending with a grade of “F” for those who consistently voted anti-rights.

Candidates with insufficient voting records as elected officials, but who returned solid pro-rights answers to the NRA questionnaire, were assigned a grade of “AQ.”

Bad News First

NRA A-graded Republicans had a 73.8% win rate in the 2008 Congressional elections (155 of 210). Among the NRA endorsed, A-graded Republicans, there was an 85.0% success rate (153 or 180). NRA A-graded, non-endorsed R candidates had a 6.7% win rate (2 of 30), but 11 of these lost to A-graded Democrats.[1]

Of the 24 NRA-endorsed Republican losses, 13 were incumbents. Two lost to AQ-graded Democrats, so the best-case scenario here is that 11 seats were lost to anti-rights candidates. (There was one “B-“ and one “C” Democrat, but it must be assumed that these freshman Democrats will follow anti-rights leadership.) For the 11 endorsed non-incumbent Republicans, 8 lost to incumbent Democrats graded “D” or “F,” so those seats were already anti-rights. One lost to an F-graded Democrat candidate in an open seat, and the other two seats were won by AQ-graded Democrats.

This potentially adds 12 anti-rights seats if the 4 AQ-graded freshmen represent their constituents, or a total of 16 if these 4 represent party leadership.

Some Good News

A-graded Democrat candidates had an 86.2% win rate (56 of 65). Of NRA endorsed, A-graded Democrats, 52 of 55 won election (94.5%), including all 5 A+ rated. Of the three losses, one lost to a grade-A Republican. The other two lost to Republicans graded “AQ.”

Four of the 10 non-NRA endorsed, A-graded Democrat candidates won (40%). The 6 non-endorsed A-grade Democrats all lost to A-graded Republicans, five of which were NRA endorsed.

Overall, NRA endorsed A-graded candidates had an 88.3% win rate (204 of 231). Of all NRA-endorsed candidates, 87.2% won (218 of 250). The NRA endorsement remains a powerful influence in campaign outcomes.

At this time, five congressional races remain undecided. At the current count, there are 211 A-graded candidates going to Washington, including 17 A+ candidates who earned this grade by promoting gun rights in Congress. Unfortunately, it takes at least 218 votes to carry the House.

There are 13 “AQ” freshmen, of which 8 are Republican: If these stand by their proclaimed pro-rights credentials, this gives 219 votes, enough to block gun control bills, but only if all are present to vote at all times. If the 5 Democrat, AQ-graded freshman vote pro-rights, there would be 224 potential votes, 6 more than the minimum necessary to turn back gun control.

Advertisement

(Compare this to the 2006 elections: There were 202 A-graded returning incumbents, plus 26 A-graded freshmen, but if freshmen Democrats remained loyal to party leadership, there would have been a minimum of 215 pro-rights votes.[2])

Add in the 18 B-graded representatives––9 of which were NRA-endorsed––and the potential for a pro-rights House increases, but only if you do your part.

Why Democrats Should Support Gun Rights

“Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” – Benjamin Franklin

If Democrat voters intended for the upcoming Congress to pass federal gun control laws, they would have nominated anti-rights candidates during primary elections. Instead, there are more A-graded Democrats than in 2004, when there were 4 A+ and 38 total A-grade incumbents. By 2008, these numbers increased to 5 A+ and 65 total A-graded Democrat incumbents––a 71% increase––indicating a movement within the Democrat party towards supporting self-defense rights. There are many excellent reasons for this.

On their home page, the Democrat Party declares:

We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security.[3]

Their civil rights page states:

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans…We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.[4]

The recent Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller concluded: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.” [5] History teaches that, when not a civil right, self-defense is hijacked by society’s elites.

Gun control doesn’t affect the rich and powerful as they can live in gated communities with private security details and have private armed guards when away from home.

The courts are not obligated to prosecute and imprison violent offenders. A recent Supreme Court case reaffirmed previous rulings that police have no duty to protect a particular member of society, despite unusual circumstances like restraining orders:

• A temporary restraining order “imposed no duty on police” and
• It does not follow that [victim] had ‘a legitimate claim of [police] entitlement.’[6]

The courts are not obligated to prosecute and imprison violent offenders. Between 1994 and 2004, for every 1,000 rapes committed, an average of 59 prison sentences were handed out in federal district courts, and 43 in state courts. While there are many factors governing the arrest and prosecution of rapists which have nothing to do with police honor or prosecutors’ willingness––e.g. insufficient evidence, victim unwilling to prosecute––nevertheless rapists have a 90% chance of avoiding prison.[7]

In 1995, women in the United Kingdom were raped at the same rate as women in the United States, and women in Australia were raped nearly twice as often. Since their gun bans in 1997, rates of rape increased in both countries, while the U.S. rate declined. By 2006, women in the UK were raped twice as often, and women in Australia three times as often, as American women.[8] Gun control has not benefited women’s civil rights.

Minorities have suffered greatly from loss of self-defense rights. In the United States, gun control laws were used to disarm Indians in order to annex their land, to keep Blacks from defending themselves against racist attacks, and to make it easier for the federal government to round up and imprison Japanese Americans during World War II.[9]

Law enforcement agencies often cannot arrive in time to avert tragedy, and are often unable to prosecute the guilty. The Democrat Party, often considered the advocate for disadvantaged people, would do well to consider that these folks deserve empowerment to pursue the American Dream enumerated in the Democrat agenda above. As more Democrats realize this fundamental truth, the party should steer closer to its stated goals by supporting the civil right of self-defense.

Conclusion

Remind your representative of their pro-rights stance during their campaign; let them know they have your support now. Provide them copies of good research detailing the fallacies and tragic consequences of gun control. Educate them to effectively carry this message onto the floor of Congress, secure in the knowledge they are doing what is best for the American People.

Endnotes:

1- Compiled from NRA Political Victory Fund web site, and CNN House Election Center 2008. Email request for Excel workbook.
2- Howard Nemerov, After the Storm, News Busters, December 26, 2006.
3- Agenda, The Democratic Party.
4- Civil Rights, The Democratic Party.
5- District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, No 07-290, Supreme Court of the United States, Syllabus, pages 56-57.
6- Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, Petitioner v. Jessica Gonzales, No. 04-278, United States Supreme Court, page 8.
7- Howard Nemerov, Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working? Contrast Media Press, 2008, Chapter 8.
8- Ibid, Chapter 2.
9- Ibid, Chapter 1.

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Howard Nemerov is a “recovering” gun control supporter. He began to research the issue of gun control on his own, and what he found transformed his perspective. Now he writes to help gun owners become better emissaries when talking about gun rights, and to help undecided people understand the underlying principles of the right to self-defense.

Howard is a contributor for the Texas State Rifle Association’s “TSRA Sportsman” and appears frequently on NRA News as an Analyst At Large, talking about gun control and its threat to our way of life and liberty. His new book is “Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?” Where the emphasis has been on rhetoric and legislation, this book includes extensive data analysis from neutral and even pro-gun-control sources to determine if the rhetoric is true, and if the laws have worked...after Four Hundred Years.

E-Mail: hnemerov@netvista.net

Home

Of the 24 NRA-endorsed Republican losses, 13 were incumbents. Two lost to AQ-graded Democrats, so the best-case scenario here is that 11 seats were lost to anti-rights candidates.