On Guns & the Presidential Race

We cut the cable at the beginning of the year and happened to be doing internet upgrades, so I didn’t catch last night’s debate. From what I read on Twitter, I didn’t miss much. But then, Paul Erhardt added this commentary on the role of guns – or lack thereof – in the debate:

Not a single question on guns in tonight’s CNN debate despite the fact that New Hampshire is home to 4 major gun/accessory manufacturers that employee 2K+ people. In the Granite State, the classic ‘red meat’ GOP issue is also a mainstream jobs issue. Not to mention two of those companies, HK and Sig Sauer, make guns for the Navy SEALs.

Meanwhile, Jim Geraghty gives us a clue about the really important issues in 2012: “Ah, CNN found the one New Hampshire Republican furious about the U.S. military presence in Germany and South Korea.”

To be clear, I don’t think that guns will be a huge issue in the next presidential race. But considering what an economic boost the gun industry and related outdoor industries provide on top of the civil rights debate surrounding the regulations on ownership and use, it’s probably something that people find a tad more relevant to the next presidential race than the military presence in Germany and South Korea.

4 thoughts on “On Guns & the Presidential Race”

  1. Given that we as a nation are broke, and Germany and South Korea are a logical place we could cut the military to save some money it seems relevant.

  2. I think you are right that guns will not be a major campaign issue—-the exception might be if a declining economy brings a significant rise in crime.

Comments are closed.