Dean on Guns

Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit remarks that he sees Howard Dean's second amendment stance as a stroke of political genius, saying: "This kind of thing won't hurt Dean's chances of getting the nomination, and being attacked by a Kennedy on gun control will be a big plus in the general election if Dean gets the nomination."

I don't know whether I agree or disagree with Reynold's conclusion, as I cannot find Howard Dean's stance on the Second Amendment.

His boilerplate position statement can be found all over the web. It reads as follows:

"Vermont has the lowest homicide rate in the United States. During Dean's eleven years in office the most murders in a single year has been 25, the lowest number was 5. Over half of these have been domestic assaults, the majority are not committed with a firearm.

If you say 'gun control' in Vermont or Tennessee, or Colorado, people think you want to take away their hunting rifle. If you say 'gun control' New York or L.A., people are happy to see Uzi's or illegal handguns taken off the streets. I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California. Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want. We need to get guns off the national radar screen if Democrats are ever going to win again in the South and the West, and if we can't win in the South and the West, we can't win national elections. In 2000, guns cost us at least West Virginia, Tennessee, and Montana, and with them the Presidency of the United States. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing Federal law."

e.ThePeople

I know the Gentle Reader will correct me if I am wrong, but in my opinion that's no statement of support for a right to bear arms. In effect, it's quite the reverse.

If a candidate said:

"Abortion means different things to different people. It doesn't evoke the same response in Texas versus, say, Michigan. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states what kinds of abortion should be lawful or unlawful,"

would we call that candidate "Pro Choice"? The "Pro Choice" people certainly wouldn't.

If a candidate said:

"Protected speech means different things to different people. If you say censorship in Des Moines it means something than different than if said in Hollywood. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states what kind of speech they can restrict,"

would we call that candidate a "free speech advocate"? I doubt it.

So how does one conclude that this:

Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing Federal law,"

is pro-Second Amendment? (Reynolds doesn't specifically say that Dean is pro-Second but the remark is made that Dean's stance places him outside the "gun-prohibitionist mindset of the Democratic Party", which I read as: "pro-Second Amendment").

Of course, there's that pesky: "...beyond existing Federal law" at the tail of Dean's statement. You may delude yourself into believing that "existing Federal law" includes the Second Amendment, but that's hogwash; the Gentle Reader knows darn well that "existing Federal law" means existing restrictions like Brady and the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. Dean makes it clear that he thinks San Francisco should be able to ban handguns but Montana cannot pass a concealed bazooka law.

I see no evidence that Howard Dean supports the Second Amendment.

I see quite the reverse.

UPDATE: Whilst surfing for more I found this, which makes it all crystal clear to me:

No, because in Vermont gun control laws would have no effect whatsoever. They certainly don't seem to have much effect in New York. Although my position is New Yorkers can have as much (gun control) as they want.

-- Howard Dean, 11 August 2003

USNews.com

"Although my position is New Yorkers can have as much (gun control) as they want."

Any questions?