In case anyone wonders if a democratic president would try to get a new AWB

a great campaign scare tactic

I find the scare theory of the gun legislation possibilities to be mostly political BS put out to get you to vote Republican. Meanwhile the Roe v Wade, gay marriage and school prayer are tossed about to get you to vote Democratic.

Far to many people are being swayed to vote on single issues like these. And single issue voters to often fail to realise the overall issues one candidate will support/defeat over the others.

If you can only find one reason to vote for candidate XYZ your about to get fooled again.
 
I find the scare theory of the gun legislation possibilities to be mostly political BS put out to get you to vote Republican. Meanwhile the Roe v Wade, gay marriage and school prayer are tossed about to get you to vote Democratic.

Far to many people are being swayed to vote on single issues like these. And single issue voters to often fail to realise the overall issues one candidate will support/defeat over the others.

If you can only find one reason to vote for candidate XYZ your about to get fooled again.
Click to expand...

When choosing a candidate you always have to make choices. I have certainly got some things I didn't want by voting republican and for Bush.

But you have to prioritize what you care about. Every gun restriciton passed is permanent and part of the ratcheting away of a clearly stated constitutional RIGHT. With the exception of the AWB that sunsetted, I've never heard of a Federal gun restriction being lifted.

I just wish all the candidates were relatively pro gun so I would have more choices. But to me ... any candidate who wants to take away my rights is removed from my personal choices, and then I choose from what is left.

Parties really aren't important to me, although a republican congress is in general going to be more gun friendly than a democaratic congress.

With many individual democratic exceptions, of course.
 
choices are not single issues

When you make choices you are talking about picking and choosing from a variety of things. When you chose on a single issue out of so many and make that the only issue you chose by your being blind sided. I place second amendment high on my list. But I certainly want to be informed about the rest of the issues the candidate takes seriously. So far I believe several of the candidates on both sides have demonstrated the ability to totaly obscure their positions on everything.

Personally I'm not going to vote for a candidate who is going to be against everything I believe in except for 2nd amendment. That sole issue alone is not getting my vote. There are far to many other things that can affect our lives if we fail to view the complete picture.

No-one who voted for Bush would have predicted his total lack of concern over the Constitution. I have no doubt he would step all over gun rights in his efforts to keep his Patriot Act in place. A whole lot of Bush voters chose him on single issues and now they are questioning the wisdom of that choice.
 
gun control history

1927-mail order gun ban-Calvin Coolidge republican
1934-national firearms act FDR democrate
1938-federal firearms act FDR democrate
1968-gun control act LBJ democrate
1972-BATF created Richard Nixon republican
1986-armed criminal act Ronald Reagon republican
1990-crime control act HWBush republican
1994-brady act Clinton democrate (Brady republican)
1994 AWB Clinton democrate
1998 NICS Clinton democrate

looks to me there is no clear party that will protect gun rights, even GW sent troops and independent contractors to NO to confiscate guns during Katrina. private ownership of guns is not in the best interest of the establishment and both partys are the establishment.
 
was gonna vote for thompson, but now that he is out it is RON PAUL.

I really like guiliani, but his gun views and past voting records on gun laws are why I am not voting for him.

sure won't vote hillary in for a 3rd term or the other guy osama, oops I mean obama.
 
An AWB in and of itself would not be the end of the world given the current environment. I suspect that it will get worse than that and we will have Australian style handgun bans!

The problem is that the US is losing its identity as a nation of gunowners and turning into a nation of pansies that fear just seeing a gun. When I was a kid, we played with toy guns every day army, cowboys, cops and robbers. I allowed my son to play the like and my neighbors viewed us as whackos.

This is the reality of our world and in Democracy the majority has the ability to change the rules on us.
 
That is possible. But I think the average Democrat getting elected these days is less anti-gun (or, dare I say it, more pro-gun) than the average Democrat elected 30 years ago. By this I am referring to newly elected Democrats. I realize the old anti-gun stand-bys are still around, but they comprise less of the Democratic party now than they have in the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

That is what they would have you believe when election time comes around. Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the threat of Republicans having enough votes in the Senate to procedurely hold up AWB renewal keeps it from going through. We elected Jim Webb in VA and he has been all talk and little action on 2nd Ammendment. We lost one helluva pro-gun Senator in George Allen who we might all be rallying behind for president if the Washington Post had not succeeded in its 2006 smear campaign!
 
dalegribble said:
gun control history

1927-mail order gun ban-Calvin Coolidge republican
1934-national firearms act FDR democrate
1938-federal firearms act FDR democrate
1968-gun control act LBJ democrate
1972-BATF created Richard Nixon republican
1986-armed criminal act Ronald Reagon republican
1990-crime control act HWBush republican
1994-brady act Clinton democrate (Brady republican)
1994 AWB Clinton democrate
1998 NICS Clinton democrate

looks to me there is no clear party that will protect gun rights, even GW sent troops and independent contractors to NO to confiscate guns during Katrina. private ownership of guns is not in the best interest of the establishment and both partys are the establishment.
Click to expand...

The intellectual dishonesty in this is almost worthy of it's own thread. I'm sure many others will pick up some I miss but I'll get started with Reagan as I remember those days and don't have to rely on research from days before I lived. I'll leave that to those more knowledgeable then I in legal history to address.

Reagan returned to Congress WITHOUT his signature the PROPERLY named "Armed Career Criminal Act" which was more a crime bill then a gun control one but did have being armed (although in a criminal act) mentioned. He DID NOT APPROVE OR SIGN THIS LEGISLATION. To quote the memorandum ver batum........
Memorandum Returning Without Approval the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984

October 19, 1984

I am withholding my approval from H.R. 6248, the ``Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984.''

This legislation would generally enhance the penalties under existing law applicable to a felon who has been convicted three times in a United States or State court of robbery or burglary and who receives, possesses, or transports firearms.

Although I certainly support the aims of H.R. 6248, I note that identical provisions were contained in the Administration's ``Comprehensive Crime Control Act,'' which I approved on October 12, 1984, as part of P.L. 98 - 473. That legislation -- marking the culmination of much hard work and effort on the part of members of my Administration and the Congress -- is the most comprehensive revision of Federal criminal statutes to be enacted in many years.

Inasmuch as H.R. 6248 merely duplicates existing law, it is unnecessary. Accordingly, I decline to approve it.

Ronald Reagan

The White House,

October 19, 1984.
Click to expand...

Further you failed to mention The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA). BIG omission. It all but reversed the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 except for the 11th hour Hugh's Amendment that the DEMOCRAT Congress inflicted upon it. BIG OMISSION. FOPA was a big reversal in gun control and this was AFTER Regan was shot.

To attempt to make Regan look anti-gun was truly dishonest.

As for the Brady bill, that JIM Brady was a Republican and therefore the Brady bill was Republican legislation is downright deceit. Either that or flat ignorance. SARA, not Jim was behind this legislation. Jim is severely brain damaged and was a PRESS SECRETARY not a legislator in any way shape or form. Sara Brady is definitely NOT a Republican and is virulently anti-gun. The Brady bunch is to ANTI gun rights what the NRA is to pro-gun rights.

Bush Senior's crime bill is anti-gun rights how? Here's a quickie summary:
In the US, the Crime Control Act of 1990 was approved on November 29, 1990. This various titles of this Act include provisions relating to the following: 1) international money laundering; 2) child abuse; 3) child pornography; 4) kidnapping, abducting, or unlawfully restraining a child; 5) the protection of crime victims; 6) funding for local law enforcement agencies; 7) funding for federal law enforcement; 8) rural drug enforcement assistance; 9) mandatory detention for certain criminals; 10) juvenile justice; 11) penalties for use of certain firearms during the commision of a crime; 12) improvements in miscellaneous criminal law; 13) disability benefits for public safety officers; 14) money laundering; 15) drug-free school zones; 16) miscellaneous amendments to the federal judicial and criminal codes; 17) general provisions; 18) grants for correctional options; 19) control of anabolic steroids; 20) asset forfeiture; 21) student loan cancellation for law enforcement officers; 22) firearms provisions; 23) chemical diversion and trafficking; 24) drug paraphernalia; 25) banking law enforcement; 26) licit opium imports; 27) sentencing for methamphetamine offenses; 28) drug enforcement grants; 29) prisons; 30) shock incarceration (prison boot camps); 31) bankruptcy and restitution; 32) appropriations for law and drug enforcement agencies; 33) anti-drug programs; 34) support of law enforcement; 35) technical and minor substantive amendments to the federal criminal code; 36) federal debt collection; and 37) national child search assistance (for missing children).
Click to expand...
Another crime bill pawned off as gun control legislation it seems. More intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.

The Coolidge and Nixon are beyond my first hand knowledge but like I said, others with more legal acumen can address those.

Bottom line turns out the actual facts, Democrats are far far more prolific at gun control. And it's not just a possibility or scare tactic, the two Democrat candidates that are still in contention (Edwards isn't going to get it unless there is a natural disaster at a debate and he's the only survivor) have PROMISED it. When a candidate PROMISES something it's a bit more then likely they will pursuit it. Note the last 3 line items in the quoted post, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.
 
any law containg any gun restrictions is anti-gun legislation

You can wonder all over the playing field if you wish. But any legislation that get passed, even if not enacted is anti-gun legislation. Reagan might not have signed it but it had passed through congress before it got to his desk. Most all the anti-gun legislation over the last 80 plus years has had some lead in that it was anti crime. Was the 1934 legislation just a tax plan to raise funds or was the intent to control machine guns? You could argue that the 1934 laws were either or both depending on your point of view.

Crime Control Act of 1990 "I am also disturbed by provisions in S. 3266 that unnecessarily constrain the discretion of State and local governments. Examples are found in Title VIII's "rural drug enforcement" program; in Title XV's "drug-free school zones" program; and in Title XVIII's program for "correctional options incentives." Most egregiously, section 1702 inappropriately overrides legitimate State firearms laws with a new and unnecessary Federal law. ... http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=19114 A quote from George Bush in a statement concerning the signing into law the legislation. While he said he disagreed with the contents he did sign it. He had the option to return it with a veto and demand the removal of the section. That is pretty clear political rhetoric where George Bush Senior signs into law something and then makes it appear he had no choice but to sign it.

The Brady bill is another classic case where most of the politicians let it happen when there were alternatives. Republicans cried they did not like it. But they did not stop it did they.

I agree with the original posting that it is a toss up as to what party is in the White House when this stuff gets enacted. It's far to political for a president to take a stand when the public has allowed it to pass.
 
You can wonder all over the playing field if you wish. But any legislation that get passed, even if not enacted is anti-gun legislation. Reagan might not have signed it but it had passed through a Democrat Majority congress before it got to his desk.
Click to expand...

Maybe the added information helps clarify it. It was brought to his desk by a Democrat led Congress. He vetoed. How is Reagan at all responsible for this legislation?

If you truly believe that it's a toss up on gun control your not paying attention. The word sophistry comes to mind.

How many gun control bills are initiated by Republicans? How many by Democrats?

I can't think of ANY gun control bills initiated by a Republican. Can anyone? One might exist but it would be like finding a Democrat initiated tax cut bill.
 
We lost one helluva pro-gun Senator in George Allen
Click to expand...

That's debatable. Allen was originally in favor of renewing the AWB.

It was only heavy pressure from Virginia voters that produced an 11th hour conversion of Allen.

And recall how John Warner then immediately switched his position and decided to vote for renewal of the AWB after years of saying he opposed a new AWB.

I still think that the two of them cut a deal.
 
"No-one who voted for Bush would have predicted his total lack of concern over the Constitution. I have no doubt he would step all over gun rights in his efforts to keep his Patriot Act in place. A whole lot of Bush voters chose him on single issues and now they are questioning the wisdom of that choice."

Bingo!!! I have been a Republican for over 50 years. Bush is the biggest disappointment ever. Bush has set on his dumb butt and allowed Cheney and the neo-con artists to trash this country.
 
No-one who voted for Bush would have predicted his total lack of concern over the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The signs were there that he was not a Constitutionalist. He said during his 2000 campaign he would renew the AWB. All his talk about "compassionate conservativism" was simply a code word for big government spending programs. In his first term, he signed Campaign Finance Reform.
 
Constitutionalists

Bush is much further out on his own than simply not being a constitutionalists. I expect a constitutionalists to be very far right leaning on every word. Bush just simply ignores the constitution when it suits him. There have been many presidents who were not constitutional scholars. But I doubt you can find another president who has paid as little attention to the constitution as this man has. He is in a class by himself and I can not find an appropriate name to describe that class. Perhaps semi-dictator or self appointed king might come close foe either one describes a person who operates as they wish without reprisal.

With the patriot act enacted by Bush I have no doubt he would sign any legislation banning all gun rights without a second thought.
 
Xd40tac said:

"We elected Jim Webb in VA and he has been all talk and little action on 2nd Ammendment. We lost one helluva pro-gun Senator in George Allen who we might all be rallying behind for president if the Washington Post had not succeeded in its 2006 smear campaign!"

Im sorry sir, but anybody who calls somebody even a remotely racial slur by any standards has lost my vote. Macaca is just that, a slur. Besides, Jim Webb got into some trouble because one of his aides was caught w/ Webb's own CCW piece.

I voted for Webb over Allen. IMHO, Allen is trash and deserved what he got.
 
"Only the threat of Republicans having enough votes in the Senate to procedurely hold up AWB renewal keeps it from going through."

There has been no vote in the US House to renew the AWB. There was at least one vote in the US Senate to renew the AWB and it passed. On 2 March, 2004 the extension of the AWB passed the US Senate by a vote of 52 to 47.

Ten of those wonderful gun loving Republican Senators voted for the AWB; including Warner of VA. They are: Chaffee, Collins, DeWine, Fitzgerald, Gregg, Voinovich, Warner, Snowe, Lugar and Smith.

BTW: Six Democrats in the US Senate voted against extension of the AWB: Landrieu, Miller, Nelson, Reid, Baucus and Feingold.

Link:

http://www.csgv.org/site/c.muLYJ7MM...ssault_Weapons_Ban_Renewal_Amendment_Vote.htm
 
Last edited:
Bruxley, I agree with you on the anti-Reagan smears, but George I was no friend to gun owners. He started the AWB with his executive order on imports urged on by that idiot Bill Bennett.
 
And he lost his next election. Gun rights and low taxes are very Republican and to break with those will get you unemployed as a Republican politician.

Another point, these examples of 36 Reps and 72 Dems voting for a gun control measure being presented as proof that Reps and Dems are equally anti-gun is hilarious. Did nobody notice that Dems are FAR more supportive in these types of examples.

If PERFECTION is the standard NONE will qualify.......holding lack of perfection up as anything other then to be expected is intellectually dishonest like the twice as many makes equal is. The perfection standard being expected from Republicans actually acknowledges their status as a high standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top