Thursday, February 09, 2006

Mannix on guns

I realize that it's hard to be a politician. You take a position and then you are stuck with it or you have to explain it away. Such will be the case with Kevin Mannix thanks to the Oregon Firearms Federation and their "Oregon politicians in their own words" page.

Audio of Mannix on guns

Bragging about "progressive legislation" on gun restictions? That's not good.

11 comments:

Gullyborg said...

I think it is telling that Mannix and Ginny Burdick are placed on the same level by OFF...

Daniel said...

Yeah, sharing a platform with her is something that no Republican should do, especially about guns.

Anonymous said...

OFF is the goof wing of the gun lobby.

The NRA is solid, and not prone to wackiness. I trust the NRA more, and they gave Mannix an A.

Granted, not the A+ I would have preferred, but not the F that Ginny Birddick earned.

OFF's bitch is that Mannix supported background checks at gun shows. Nobody loves their guns more than I, but I think that is a fine position. I think that mental cases and felons should not be able to purchase guns. Call me crazy (as long as I can keep my guns).

I cornered Mannix on his gun record in 2002, and I found out that we can thank Kevin Mannix (in large part) for Oregon becoming a SHALL ISSUE state for concealed carry, instead of a MAY issue where urban sheriffs can deny citizens the right to carry concealed. Perhaps that accounts for NRA's endorsement of Mannix.

The law he referred to in the speech had provisions which granted immunity from civil liability to htose who properly kept guns from falling in to the hands of unsupervised children. Good! My guns are not kept where kids would have access to them, and I hope yours aren't either (though I hope your kids are educated about them too, and got their guns when they were 4).

I also like that he negotiated shorter records retention periods to respect the gun owner's rights and not allow them to be put on a future confiscation list.

So, I went through this with him in 2002 and was more than satisfied with his record. He is a champion for gun rights in my view, but a champion for personal responsibility as well.

He and Ginny Burdick have nothing in common save for voting for this bill. OFF is OFF its meds. Listen to the NRA. 100% wackjob free for over 100 years.

-Andy

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I have heard enough Mannix speeches to know that when he says "progressive," he uses it in the traditional sense. Not in the commie wackjob sense that moveon and cindy sheehan so to try to pretend they aren't commie liberals.

Republicans have always been progressive...voting rights, abolition, civil rights, freedom around the world, populism, etc. That is REAL progressive.

So the word has been co-opted and distorted. Kind of like the word "amnesty" which now means "automatically placed on the path to citizenship" instead of "exempt from punishment; release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon]; the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people)"

So don't get hung up on "progressive". It doesn't mean what the left wing wack jobs think it means. Mannix has said he is trying to take the word back from the liberal wingnuts and restore it to its rightful place in conservative history.

Give him a break.

-Andy

Anonymous said...

And in case you are wondering what the word really means, and what Mannix says he wants to restore it to, the columbia encyclopedia defines the progressive party platform like this:

"The Progressive platform called for the direct election of U.S. Senators, the initiative, referendum, and recall, woman suffrage, reduction of the tariff, and many social reforms. "

When you hear Mannix speak, this is what he means by Progressive. He links it to the initiative and referendum and recall in nearly every speech.

Later, the Progressives were taken over by communists and other leftists and the word was co-opted. Kind of like "amnesty."

-Andy

Sailor Republica said...

And you couldn't have put that into just one post?

Formaldehyde must be affecting ya.

Anonymous said...

Way to dodge the substance in favor of a potshot.

Revealing.

Why not just admit that some of this vitriol that is thrown the guy's way is pettiness and wrong?

You don't have to support him. But you don't have to beat him up with untruths either.

-Andy

Gullyborg said...

Here is one simple fact: supporting background checks at gun shows is, to the Second Amendment crowd, about as toxic as supporting the President's immigration plan is to the secured-borders crowd.

Most voters aren't going to care one way or the other on these issues as long as you sound sane. So you could say "I support common sense gun control" or "I support common sense protection for gun owners" and most people won't know the difference (if there is one between these wishy-washy no-stand statements).

But when you piss off the "goof wing" as you call it--be it on guns, immigration, etc., you do more harm than good.

Take the immigration issue that has caused such a firestorm here. The average voter is probably concerned about illegal immigration and thinks government should "do something." But they don't know what. And they don't follow the issue enough to know the differences between the various House and Senate bills or what the President says in the SOTU. They just know that if a candidate says he is tough in immigration, then he must be tough on immigration.

So when the 3 candidates make their stump speeches, most voters who hear them (if they hear them at all) will think "gee, these 3 guys are all good on immigration, so I don't need to worry about it."

But when people like Daniel and OFIR and such hear the three, they make a decision based on subtle, but very important, differences between the three. And these are the people who do things like raise large donations to campaigns, send out endorsements, provide mailing lists, etc.

So it is vitally important that the politicians craft their stands on these issues in order to win the support of what you call the "goof wings."

Now let's go from immigration to guns:

I am, in no uncertain terms, part of the goof wing on guns. And guess what: a few thousand other goof wingers on guns read my website every week, because I am a popular gun blogger. So when the candidates talk gun issues, I pay attention. And when goof wing groups like OFF speak, I listen. And then I blog about it. And then a few thousand people who care about ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than gun rights hear what I have to say.

Many of those readers have deep pockets, but only cough up the campaign dough for "true believer" pro-gun candidates.

Money is important to campaigns. Mannix is in the red.

So the last thing Mannix wants to do is piss off goof wing gun groups, or goof wing branches of any other special interest. So it was politically a very bad idea for Mannix to support "common sense progressive gun safety legislation." Especially since the people demanding tougher gun laws are all voting against him anyway, no matter what he says.

Tony said...

Hate to sound like a politician, but I think Gully and Andy both bring up some good points here.

Andy, I pretty much agree with your analysis on the Mannix / Gun issue.

But I also think Gully has a valid point...to single issue voters, or those who are passionate about the issue, there will be some who are going to not support Mannix over this issue. And I think the parallel to the illegals issue is an excellent analogy.

I think Mannix is due some slack on this because it was several years ago, and maybe he would say his thinking has matured on this issue upon reflection.

I think we need to give him some credit on the right to carry (shall issue) bill. That is 100 times more important than the gun show checks to me.

I voted against the ballot measure to do gun show checks, but upon reflection, I am not as bothered by it as I used to be. OFF's predictions about gun shows going under and beef jerky salesmen being put out of business and people not being able to transfer guns betwen family members did not come true.

And the checks are really instant checks - it only takes a minute, and it can be done while you are filling out the transfer papers. My problem is with stupid waiting period checks, which are I believe unconstitutional, and records retention, which I believe is to keep a list for future confiscation. But instant checks are not a bad idea. The gun dealer does them in their store, why not when the same dealer is at a show?

Also, the immunity from civil liability and the ability to sue an employee of the state who discloses background check information (and the agency would not be able to cover the employee's actions) are great pro-gun provisions. I looked it up at http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/sms/SMS99Frameset.html

I would probably have voted against it based on the predictions of OFF. But they have been found to be untrue when the basically same law passed as a ballot measure.

So yes, Gully, your political analysis is right on. And Andy, your analysis of the other factors is also right on.

Bottom line: I think this bill was a net positive for gun owners, OFF didn't see it that way, and some personal stuff probably happened and they got their panties wadded up. And now they hold a grudge and want to make sure that in the "whose manhood is bigger" contest, they come out on top. I think now it is less about the issue of background checks and more about egos for them.

So even though gun rights are my NUMBER 1 ISSUE (because all freedoms flow from the 2nd amendment, and by the way Gully your cordite posts are a regular read for me - great job, very thorough), I do not believe it is fair to say that Mannix is anti gun. I think his net record is very positive, especially on right to carry, and we owe him for that.

Dare!PDX said...

Just to mention it simply:

Mannix has had an A rating from the NRA on every issue but background checks.

Even when a Democrat he stilled pulled A ratings. This says more about Mannix and the 2nd ammendment than any thing said on the stump today.

Not a Mannix fan, I still trust him with my right to shoot burglars invading my home. He's a friend of the 2nd Ammendment.

Jerky Direct said...

Our network has been looking for a Jerky Direct business like yours to list in our World Directory & our forum.

Hey, there is no cost and it will only take a few minutes for you to register!

Your Silver Fox Business Building Team helping build your Jerky Direct business!