Seriously. What do Democrats actually gain in exchange for running around with their hair on fire about guns? To begin with, remember that credible, liberal Constitutional scholars think that the Second Amendment is about an individual right to own firearms. And with that as an inflammatory teaser...
If we had a Democratic candidate come right out and say that the 2nd is about an individual right, they would be politely but firmly telling all the "it's a collective right that only applies to state militias" crowd to STFU. And you would line up for hours to vote for that candidate anyway. Now, due to my awesome telepathic powers (or a backdoor to NSA computers) I can see a lot of you with fingers already poised over the "THAT"S NOT TRUE!" macro key on your keyboards, but before you hit "enter", bear with me for a moment. You see, this isn't a hypothetical.
As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms
This is a quote from former
Constitutional law professor Barack Obama on April 16, 2008, right before the Pennsylvania primary. His opponent won that primary, and while not a professor of Constitutional law,
she had this to say on the same date:
I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns
(both quotes then go on to explain their support for various sorts of regulations, but I'm dealing strictly with the issue of what they think the 2nd Amendment
means)
Despite taking an "individual right to own guns" stance on the 2nd Amendment, Obama went on to get more votes and more Democratic votes (including yours) than any other presidential candidate, ever. Whereupon he relaxed gun carrying laws in national parks and gun transport laws on Amtrak trains, did not lift a finger to get an amicus brief filed in support of gun control in McDonald v. Chicago(2010) nor said a word about the 81 House Democrats who signed an amicus brief against the gun control stance of Chicago. And got re-elected in 2012 with the second-largest number of Democratic votes, ever. He followed that up by spending zero political capital to support Dianne Feinstein's assault weapon ban and prosecutions for felons trying to illegally buy guns are half of what they were under George W. Bush. Even so, if Obama could run again in 2016, you'd probably vote for him again, and if you wouldn't, it would not be because of his actions or lack thereof on guns.
I'd wager good money that every member of the Kos groups "Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment(RASA)" and "Shut down the NRA" who voted in 2008 and 2012, voted for Obama. The point? Being pro-gun or gun-neutral does not harm a Democratic candidate. To be cynical, you'll vote for whoever has a (D) after their name unless you catch them in bed with a dead girl, regardless of their stance on guns. Remember how in March 2009 we had 65 Democratic congressmen sign a letter to Eric Holder opposing reinstatement of the Clinton-Era assault weapon ban and how Kossacks lined up in outraged solidarity vowing to kick those bums out? And how in 2010 our righteous wrath replaced all those NRA-shill-Blue-Dogs in red states like Vermont and Illinois and Oregon with solid anti-gun Democrats? Me neither.
On the other hand, we have Giron and Morse getting spanked in Colorado. And I think "spanked" is the appropriate term. When Democrats show up at the polls with a 50% advantage and outspend Republicans by 6 to 1 leading up to the recall vote, and two candidates from Obama-voting districts still headed to the unemployment line due to Democrats voting against them because of a perceived too-tough stance on gun control, then yes they got spanked. Giron and Morse losing would be like if Romney lost in Utah after outspending Obama by a factor of 6. And Democrats are noticing this. Mark Udall(D-CO) is up for re-election this year. In January, his "about" page touted his gun control cred with his support for "stronger gun safety laws (including a universal background check and a ban on high capacity magazines)." Today, that line is conspicuously missing and all that remains is "Mark focuses his work on protecting Coloradans’ consumer rights and constitutional liberties." Mmmm..."constitutional liberties". How many Colorado Kossacks are going to call him a sellout and not vote for him or not vote at all because of this...evolving stance on the issue? Precious few, I'll wager.
So, what do we have?
1) Running on the platform of "let's curtail the rights of people we don't approve of, even if they have not done anything wrong" is not really a liberal value as I understand the term "liberal".
2) Democrats with a gun-friendly or gun-neutral stance do not lose far-left votes because of it.
3) Democrats with a gun-hostile stance do lose moderate votes because of it. Based on polling (Penn, Schoen & Berland, 2003), a Democrat's stance on the issue is worth up to a 21% shift in the way gun owners vote, like having a Obama-favorable district suddenly vote two sitting Democrats out of office. In other words, Colorado was not a fluke.
4) Taking it off the table would completely deflate any number of far-right talking points (it would not stop conspiracy nuts, but it would affect independents/moderates).
If the mantra for Daily Kos is electing "more and better Democrats", then why not be more gun-friendly or gun-neutral? After all, over 25% of Democrats are gun owners and clearly enough of them vote on that issue to make a difference in some parts of the country. The >99.9% of us who never have and never will do anything criminal or negligent with a firearm don't like being demonized for the misdeeds of others, and we do support measures that will decrease gun violence, but not at the cost of having other Democrats treat us like potential criminals and second-class citizens.
And if you think that having a gun-friendly or gun-neutral stance is not a "better" Democrat in that "more and better" phrase, let me remind you that it was your votes (and mine) that already put one with that stance (and in practice, policy) in the White House. Twice.