Average "liberal" not really anti-gun?

[Playboypenguin]

Look at the list again of those Senators who voted against the bill. This list contains the names most of the rabidly anti-2nd Amendment US Senators in Congress. Where any one of these Senators stands on gun-related issues cannot be questioned......PERIOD! They would have voted against this bill whether "implications" were attached or not.

And you know that how?

You are saying you have definitive knowledge of an event that did not happen? The bill was a horrible bill. It was filled with loopholes, vague language, and exemptions that where intentionaly written in to expand the bills meaning way beyond protecting gun manufacturers. The bill would have been used more to protect polluters and companies that violated enviromental and safety laws more than it would have been used to protect gun makers.

How can you say you know who would have voted for it if it was not that way? How can you claim to have knowledge of an event that did not happen?

After reading this bill (and the many legal analysis done of the bill) I would think most people would be more angry with the people who wrote it and the people that voted for it and not the ones that voted against.

 

[BoringAccountant]

JuanCarlos
And, also as I said in the other thread (and as I've said in other NRA threads) I think a big step would be convincing the NRA to routinely endorse pro-gun Democrats...especially when they're just as pro-gun as their Republican opponents (and especially when their Republican opponents are obvious losers). As it stands, Democrat candidates have little incentive to be pro-gun or worry too much about their voting record regarding guns...they're never going to get an NRA endorsement anyway, and a majority of Democrat voters (including myself...please don't hurt me) don't necessarily put gun-rights issues above all others.

Do you think that a Democrat would accept a NRA endorsement? I just have never considered that option before and it sounds like a great idea to show that the Dems (at least some) are against gun control, but do you think the party would accept that. I just have this feeling that other endorsements that the candidate would get (i.e. NAACP, Planned Parenthood, etc.) he could lose if he accepted an NRA backing. Great idea though, shame all these party politics have to get into the way.

 

[sasquatch]

Playboypenguin

"And you know that how?

You are saying you have definitive knowledge of an event that did not happen? The bill was a horrible bill."

Gee.....you must have missed this part of my post:

"By the way, have any of the above US Senators ever voted in favor of gun owners to your knowledge?"

Being the bastion of liberal free-thought around here, surely you wouldn't duck such a question.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Do you think that a Democrat would accept a NRA endorsement? I just have never considered that option before and it sounds like a great idea to show that the Dems (at least some) are against gun control, but do you think the party would accept that. I just have this feeling that other endorsements that the candidate would get (i.e. NAACP, Planned Parenthood, etc.) he could lose if he accepted an NRA backing. Great idea though, shame all these party politics have to get into the way.

Do we have any evidence that a candidate would lose NAACP or Planned Parenthood endorsements if he accepted one from the NRA? I mean, it isn't as if the NAACP is suddenly going to up and endorse the other candidate that (presumably, if we're talking about losing an endorsement) doesn't support their interests just because the Democrat takes the NRA's endorsement. I'd say about the only reason people don't currently get endorsements from both the NRA and Planned Parenthood is because the NRA endorses Republicans almost exclusively, and nearly all such candidates are pro-life.

I'm not saying that the NRA should just up and start endorsing every Democrat they can find. But I think there are a few exceptions (such as in western and southern states) where perhaps the NRA could appear just a bit less partisan by endorsing some Democrats that are pro-gun.

As for whether an individual candidate would even accept an endorsement...why not? I can't imagine Jon Tester would have turned down an NRA endorsement over Conrad Burns, for instance. Being pro-gun isn't exactly a liability in Montana.

 

[sasquatch]

BorintAccountant

"Do you think that a Democrat would accept a NRA endorsement? I just have never considered that option before and it sounds like a great idea to show that the Dems (at least some) are against gun control, but do you think the party would accept that."

Can you imagine the screeching and the gnashing of teeth that would come from Schumer, Feinstein and Kennedy if a Democrat were to accept an endorsement from the NRA or the SAF? I would love to see it happen!

 

[Playboypenguin]

You clearly said...

They would have voted against this bill whether "implications" were attached or not.

That is saying you know what would have happened even though it did not happen. I guess you have a crystal ball or something.

 

[sasquatch]

Playboypenguin

I clearly did, and I believe it to be true.

Gonna address my question to you ?

 

[sasquatch]

That's what I figured...............

 

[BoringAccountant]

I'm not saying that the NRA should just up and start endorsing every Democrat they can find. But I think there are a few exceptions (such as in western and southern states) where perhaps the NRA could appear just a bit less partisan by endorsing some Democrats that are pro-gun.

O, I agree, I was just stating that I think that candidate would most likely be placed between a rock and a hard place...for example lets say this candidate is pro-guns and pro-choice. If Planned Parenthood gave backing and endorsements to candidate A, then realized he was being endorsed also by the NRA, I can just see them switching their endoresment to candidate B, based only on the fact that the NRA predominately is backing pro-life republicans and candidate B is also pro-choice. Just my opinion.

As for whether an individual candidate would even accept an endorsement...why not? I can't imagine Jon Tester would have turned down an NRA endorsement over Conrad Burns, for instance. Being pro-gun isn't exactly a liability in Montana.

As far as Burns and Tester...I agree, probably wouldn't make a difference, but if we were talking about John Kerry accepting an NRA endorsement (I know its a far stretch) I think Kerry's other endorsements would mention something to the effect, its either us or them, not both. I dont know, maybe I am overanalyzing these party politics.

Can you imagine the screeching and the gnashing of teeth that would come from Schumer, Feinstein and Kennedy if a Democrat were to accept an endorsement from the NRA or the SAF? I would love to see it happen!

That woud be hilarious... Ted would prolly join Patrick in using some alternative medicines to lighten the mood

 

[JuanCarlos]

O, I agree, I was just stating that I think that candidate would most likely be placed between a rock and a hard place...for example lets say this candidate is pro-guns and pro-choice. If Planned Parenthood gave backing and endorsements to candidate A, then realized he was being endorsed also by the NRA, I can just see them switching their endoresment to candidate B, based only on the fact that the NRA predominately is backing pro-life republicans and candidate B is also pro-choice. Just my opinion.

See, but this is highly unlikely because odds are if candidate A was being endorsed by Planned Parenthood then they were probably pro-choice (and we're assuming also a Democrat). Which means it's highly likely that candidate B is both pro-life (and would also be a Republican).

There is absolutely no way I can see Planned Parenthood backing a pro-life candidate just because the pro-choice candidate is also pro-gun. Now, I can perhaps see them switching their endorsement if both candidates were equally pro-choice...which would be no different than what I'm suggesting the NRA do. I see no problem there. But it isn't like PP is going to assume candidate A is pro-life simply because the NRA backed them...before endorsing a candidate I imagine a majority of interest groups at least glance over their legislative records and official stances.

Can you imagine the screeching and the gnashing of teeth that would come from Schumer, Feinstein and Kennedy if a Democrat were to accept an endorsement from the NRA or the SAF? I would love to see it happen!

If it meant putting Democrat butts in seats (and Democrat leadership in charge) I'm sure they'd just quietly put up with it. I'm betting any one of them would have killed to get Tester the endorsement from the NRA (and others) because it probably would have made election night a lot less exciting up here.

And keep in mind that I'm only talking about instances where the Democrat candidate is more or less equally pro-gun compared to his Republican opponent...and a better candidate overall. Not exactly common.

Of course, there would also be the option of endorsing both candidates. The NRA could simply say "vote for either one...they're both great guys who will look after your gun rights."

 

[sasquatch]

Juan Carlos

Gonna repeat this for you.

"And, also as I said in the other thread (and as I've said in other NRA threads) I think a big step would be convincing the NRA to routinely endorse pro-gun Democrats...especially when they're just as pro-gun as their Republican opponents...."

Please give me a list, say half a dozen, of these Democrats (preferably US house or Senate) who are as "pro-gun" as their "Republican opponents". I'm not talking about ones who claim to be pheasant hunters, or actually went deer-hunting once. I am talking about dyed-in-the-wool supporters of the 2nd Amendment, who also have a record of voting in support of gun-owners.

 

[SecDef]

Sasquatch, you spent more time asking than looking it up...

In the Senate: Tester, Webb, Reid, Casey, Baucus, Nelson

In the House: FL 16 (Mahoney), Indiana (Donnelly, Ellsworth, Hill), MN 1 (Walz), NC 11 (Shuler), Ohio (Wilson, Space), PA 4 (Altmire), TX 22 (Lampson), and VT (Welch).

 

[sasquatch]

SecDef

Sasquatch, you spent more time asking than looking it up...

It's not up to me to "look it up". When someone here makes a statement it's up to them to provide some kind of evidence (or links) in support of that statement.

I keep hearing about all of these Democrats who support our 2nd Amendment rights. When I ask for proof, that is usually end the end of the discussion.

Now, can you provide me some evidence of such support. Oh, by the way, the GOA rates Baucus as an "F", Reid as an "F". I'm not impressed with your choices.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Oh, by the way, the GOA rates Baucus as an "F", Reid as an "F". I'm not impressed with your choices.

That's because Baucus sucks.

Tester, on the other hand, has/had a MSSA rating of "B" (in 2002) and an NRA rating of "A." The MSSA has since come out against him, from what I read, because he shelved a couple bills they wanted to go through (in MT). He's not perfect.

Of course, we also get back to the chicken/egg problem of whether some pro-gun Democrats are only more willing to compromise on some issues because they know they have nothing really to lose (since they'll never receive endorsements over Republicans from pro-gun groups). At which point it makes sense for somebody for whom gun control is not the first/only priority to do so...they have no incentive not to.

And don't even pretend that all those pro-gun Republicans who never compromise do so because their beliefs are stronger or because guns are a higher priority to them...they can do so both because their party platform is pro-gun and because in doing so they can count on receiving endorsements from pro-gun groups.

Which would be super if gun rights were the only thing I was concerned with and the only thing legislators ever voted on.

 

[GoSlash27]

Sen Baucus:
Voted for AWB (bad)
Voted against Brady sunset (bad)
Voted for Brady bill (bad)
Voted for Gun lock requirement (bad)
Voted against gun show regulation (good)
Voted against manufacturer protection (bad)
Voted for child safety locks (bad)
Voted for manufacturer protection (good)
Voted for prohibition of confiscation (good)

Appears that he has switched sides on the 2nd Amdt in the last few years.

Sen. Reid:
Voted against AWB (good)
Voted for Brady sunset (good)
Voted for Brady bill (bad)
Voted for gun lock requirement (bad)
Voted for gun show regulation (bad)
Voted against manufacturer protection (bad)
Voted for child safety locks (bad)
Voted for manufacturer protection (good)
Voted for prohibition of confiscation (good)

Same as above, he appears to have switched the last few years.

Contrast these records with Richard Lugar (republican)
Voted for AWB (bad)
Voted against Brady sunset (bad)
Voted for Brady bill (bad)
Voted for gun lock requirement (bad)
Voted for gun show regulation (bad)
Voted for manufacturer protection (good)
Voted for child safety locks (bad)
Voted for manufacturer protection (good)
Voted for prohibition of confiscation (good)

He got the same GOA rating (F) but judging by this I'd say some "F"s are really bloody red.

When comparing Reid to Baucus to Lugar, it's obvious that some of these special interest groups are rating more based on party than deeds. GOA included.

 

[sasquatch]

JuanCarlos

"Of course, we also get back to the chicken/egg problem of whether some pro-gun Democrats are only more willing to compromise on some issues because they know they have nothing really to lose (since they'll never receive endorsements over Republicans from pro-gun groups"

So these so-called "pro-gun" Democrats aren't really pro-gun at all......only when it behooves them politically. They have no personal conviction whatsoever about our 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[JuanCarlos]

So these so-called "pro-gun" Democrats aren't really pro-gun at all......only when it behooves them politically. They have no personal conviction whatsoever about our 2nd Amendment rights.

You forgot to quote the rest of my post...

And don't even pretend that all those pro-gun Republicans who never compromise do so because their beliefs are stronger or because guns are a higher priority to them...they can do so both because their party platform is pro-gun and because in doing so they can count on receiving endorsements from pro-gun groups.

Which would be super if gun rights were the only thing I was concerned with and the only thing legislators ever voted on.

You're telling me all those R's that vote pro-gun on the hill do so because of their strong personal conviction about our 2nd amendment rights? Not for political gain?

It's almost as though you only read half my post. It's not like it was that long.

 

[rem33]

I believe lot of liberals and/or Democrats are anti-gun for the simple reason they know no better. Anti-gun has been brought forward by the party they belong to and the liberal thinking of the group as a whole.

I have no idea how large of a problem this is but I speak from personal experience. My now wife whom I met a few years ago is a stanch Democrat and was anti-gun, she didn't know any better. Since she has met me she has become a shooter, gun owner, and small varmint shooter. She now has about 6 of her own and is wanting a nice scoped .22 rifle.
Don't wanna drill and tap that pretty Golden Boy ya know.

We all only know the facts we have been taught, or what we have learned thru life's experiences, so many know no better. If all you had seen or read was so called main stream press, or what is taught for the most part in the educational system, it would be what you knew.

Sad huh?

 

[stanger04]

I still say the problem is no one is happy or willing to compromise.

I've said it a hundred times the 2nd in no way shape or form says what kind of firearms a person is allowed to own.

There are too many people to quick to jump that gun control is evil. Some gun control is needed.

If we had no gun control like a lot of people are saying, then we would have kids buying handguns and rifles. I mean having to be a certain age to buy a firearm is gun control. I don't personally think 13 year old kids should be allowed to buy guns, there needs to be a maturity level reached ( not that some haven't ) but def. not all. So if you can agree with that then how can you not say that there are some adults that are the same way.

It doesn't mean a person is R or D, it's common sense. Not every person can be a cop, doctor, or a lawyer. Not every person can handle the responsibility.

You have the rights until those infringe on others. Smokes can't smoke in certain places because nons cry about it, so they are saying smokers don't have the same rights. Smoking kills well so do guns in the hands of people with no training or sense of responsibility.

Look at people loading there own ammo, some don't have the sense to stay within safety limits, which could harm them and anyone near them. That's ok I guess anyone that spends enough money on equipment to reload or guns to shoot must know how to act right and never do wrong.

Maybe more libs as they are called, see more idiots in the world.

 

[rem33]

Strange 04,

Maybe more libs as they are called, see more idiots in the world

Maybe they are the idiot's


When I was a kid all you had to do was show ID to buy a gun about the same time I turned 18 you had to fill out a yellow question sheet. In calif you had to wait 3 days to get a hand gun, but that was it and crime was a whole lot less than now. being able to get your hands on a gun is not the problem and I don't care how much you restrict it the BG's Will.Criminals will get a gun or heck look what they make in prison. If you want or need one bad enough you can make one and the powder to fire it with.

I got my first 22 given to me at 11. Some of my buddy's already had one some didn't for a while. We went to gun safety or I did and we didn't do crime with them.

!3 year old can't have a drivers license either but with a firearm safety class they can go hunting.

Your idea's on gun control are very misguided from what you have read. Not to pick on you as I am sure you feel correct I just happen to hardily disagree.

No none nada to gun control. We have the laws in place now more than needed. More will only hurt those of us that try to stay legal.