(2003) The issue of whether or not to support tougher gun-control bills has become more of a tool to gain favor and/or re-election by politicians; rather than controlling violent gun related crimes. Representative John Dingell (D) has illustrated this point by his recent actions. In 1994, he went against the NRA and President Bill Clinton by voting for a crime bill banning assault weapons. Although his was re-elected by doing this, many of his democratic peers were not and the Republicans gained control of the House. (Bai and Rosenberg, 1999) Recently he used the current gun-control reform to ensure political favor for himself and other Democratic leaders, who later thanked him for his maneuver. What he did was, instead of supporting the president, joined the Republicans and NRA lobbyists in a compromised bill, in which he authored. His bill was eventually defeated, stopping all chances for stricter gun-control laws this year. Dingell never intended for the bill to pass, according to his aids, giving the gun-control advocates a painful lesson in the gun lobbyists" power in the House of Representative. (Bai and Rosenberg, 1999) In an odd twist, Dingell himself voted against the bill.
.
Discussion.
In 2002, the NRA flexed its political muscle with enormous success. 82% of NRA endorsed candidates, 84% of our Senate, and 94% of our Congressional candidates won their elections. (D"Agostino, 2003) It is quite clear that the pro-gun lobbyist have a strong foothold with our Congressional branch, making it difficult, if not impossible, to enact stricter laws in order to limit the number of firearms on our streets. The NRA has been often called the strongest lobbyists organization in politics today.
Time and time again the pro-gun supporters have won their point. In Oregon, hunters can carry a sidearm during bow hunting season. This came about after a lengthy debate on if it was the Fish and Wildlife Department's place to decide when citizens can or can not carry a weapon.
