HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Is it true that Republica...

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:21 PM

 

Is it true that Republicans oppose gun control while all or most Democrats favor gun control?

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:52 PM - Edit history (2)

In 1994, when the Assault Weapons Ban was passed as a key part of H.R. 3355, the author of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, to which it was attached, was a Democrat from Texas. (Earlier before editing this post, because of my own ignorance, I misidentified Jack Brooks as a Republican. Mea culpa.)

Because 95.7% of the Republican Senators voted in favor the AWB when the vote was taken, although there is no record of the House votes where only a voice vote was taken in the House of Representatives, no one can seriously claim that all or most of the Republican Representatives were opposed to the passage of the AWB.

The 95.7% of the Republican Senators who voted in favor of the AWB include Richard Shelby (AL), Frank Murkowski, Ted Stevens (AK), JOHN MCCAIN (AZ), Christopher Bond (MO), Conrad Burns (MT), Judd Gregg, Bob Smith (NH), Pete Domenici (NM), Alfonse D'Amato (NY), Duncan Faircloth, Jesse Helms (NC), Don Nickles (OK), Robert Packwood (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), John Chafee (RI), J. Thurmond (SC), Larry Pressler (SD), Kay Hutchison (TX), George Brown, Ben Campbell (CO), William Roth (DE), Connie MAck (FL), Paul Coverdell (GA), Larry Craig, Dirk Kempthorne (ID), Daniel Coats, Richard Lugar (IN), Charles Grassley (IA), Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum (KS), Mitch McConnell (KY), William Cohen (ME), Thad Cochran, Trent Lott (MS), Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch (UT), James Jeffords (VT), John Warner (VA), T. Gorton (WA), Alan Simpson, Malcolm Wallop (WY).

Their 1994 position was consistent with Nixon's 1969 position, who told the journalist William Safire at that time that "he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=2471&dt=1

Their 1994 position was consistent with Bush-41's 1989 position:
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=2471&dt=1


Their 1994 position was also consistent with Reagan's 1991 position:
"I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=2471&dt=1


In 2008, when three Republican Representatives sponsored a Bill to extend the AWB, and acted alone with no Democratic Sponsor, the following Democrats signed a letter to AG Holder to express their strong opposition to extending the AWB:
Mike Ross (D-AR), Tim Holden (D-PA), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), John Dingell (D-MI), Marion Berry (D-AR), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Gene Green (D-TX), Chet Edwards (D-TX), Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), Gene Taylor (D-MS), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Collin Peterson (D-MN), John Tanner (D-TN), Allen Boyd (D-FL), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Eric Massa (D-NY), Steve Kagen, MD (D-WI), Betsy Markey (D-CO), Paul Hodes (D-NH), Ron Kind (D-WI), Peter Welch (D-VT), Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Walt Minnick (D-ID), John Boccieri (D-OH), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Tom Perriello (D-VA), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Ben Chandler (D-KY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Debbie Halvorson (D-IL), Travis Childers (D-MS), Tim Walz (D-MN), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), John Murtha (D-PA), Bart Gordon (D-TN), Zach Space (D-OH), Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Lincoln Davis (D-TN), Artur Davis (D-AL), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), John Barrow (D-GA), Christopher Carney (D-PA), Dan Boren (D-OK), Parker Griffith (D-AL), Charlie Wilson (D-OH), Heath Shuler (D-NC), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), Jim Marshall (D-GA), Jason Altmire (D-PA), Larry Kissell (D-NC), John Salazar (D-CO), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN),
Frank Kratovil (D-MD), Glenn Nye (D-VA), Bobby Bright (D-AL), Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), Joe Baca (D-CA).
http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=2471&dt=1

55 replies, 4991 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is it true that Republicans oppose gun control while all or most Democrats favor gun control? (Original post)
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 OP
ileus Nov 2012 #1
ThatPoetGuy Nov 2012 #3
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #4
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #5
dumbledork Nov 2012 #7
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #10
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #14
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #23
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #30
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #47
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #48
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #50
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #52
Jenoch Nov 2012 #46
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #49
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #17
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #26
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #32
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #33
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #34
Clames Nov 2012 #6
ThatPoetGuy Nov 2012 #13
Clames Nov 2012 #40
gejohnston Nov 2012 #8
ThatPoetGuy Nov 2012 #15
gejohnston Nov 2012 #16
ThatPoetGuy Nov 2012 #25
rrneck Nov 2012 #9
orpupilofnature57 Nov 2012 #11
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #18
ThatPoetGuy Nov 2012 #24
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #28
ThatPoetGuy Nov 2012 #37
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #45
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #31
ThatPoetGuy Nov 2012 #35
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #43
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #38
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #44
orpupilofnature57 Nov 2012 #2
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #12
Kaleva Nov 2012 #19
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #20
gejohnston Nov 2012 #21
Kaleva Nov 2012 #22
hack89 Nov 2012 #27
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #29
derby378 Nov 2012 #36
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #39
derby378 Nov 2012 #42
glacierbay Nov 2012 #41
nichomachus Nov 2012 #51
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #53
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #54
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #55

Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:25 PM

1. As a party we need to work on a more progressive 2A stance...as citizens we are progressive

in our actions of buying, owning, and carrying firearms.



Carry on My fellow D's...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:34 PM

3. I agree that as a party we should work toward a more progressive stance...

but I don't see anything progressive in buying, owning, or carrying any objects other than information.

I have nothing against guns, and I have nothing against Xboxes, but I find appalling the notion that the possession of either of them would be inherently progressive.

As a party we should work toward avoiding paranoid and propagandistic thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:42 PM

4. +100 Well said.

Using the word progressive in this context renders it meaningless. Makes one wonder what else those who misuse it consider progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:52 PM

5. give away your boat. it is not information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:31 PM

7. You mean "A sailboat in every backyard" doesn't apply any more? Crap.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:26 PM

10. I'm not that progressive, but I often share it with others.

There is nothing progressive about consumerism of any kind. My boat is my home. I choose that lifestyle mainly because my impact on the planet and it's resources is minimal and the odds of harming others is also minimal. BTW, I gave away my last boat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:57 PM

14. There is nothing progressive about consumerism of any kind. oh horse hockey --

quit eating then.

sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:25 AM

23. There is a big difference between consuming what one needs and consumerism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:57 PM

30. not if you don't qualify the word with some kind of adjective perhaps Rampant Consumerism, or

out of control consumerism or Mindless consumerism, that would be different. I would agree with that but, to just say that consumerism is not progressive....that does not jibe for me.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:00 PM

47. OK, I'll go with mindless. That's what it means to me.

But mostly it's about society's obsession with the economy, while disregarding the environment. There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism, but when it outweighs all else, then we find ourselves on a slippery slope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:04 PM

48. yes, I can agree with all that but, (and I hate to be pedantic about it) it needs to be

capitalized : The Age of Consumerism vs. consumerism

is as to

The Holocaust vs. a holocaust.

Words evolve and meanings change, I understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:14 PM

50. OK, let's agree on Mindless Consumerism

Which, IMO, includes keeping up with the Jones's, to coin a phrase from the 1950s. Gotta have the latest Iphone, Ipad, model of car, whatever. All of which encourages planned obsolescence, a false sense of self-worth and the destruction of the environment, not to mention the very economy such MC purports to rescue.
We buy the shit, China ships it. Who owes who at the end of the day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #50)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:24 PM

52. Oh - I am agreeing with you about Consumerism as Wiki defined it just capitalize the word --

Consumerism (when capitalized) is evidently become to be known as the age of rampant, out of control consuming of products, good and services -- Keeping Up With the Jones on steroids if you will --

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:33 PM

46. I don't know how you

are defining 'consumerism', but if 'consumerism' declines much more the economy will take much longer to recover. As my dad used to say,
"nothing happens until somebody sells something".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #46)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:06 PM

49. And that is a huge misconception which got us into this mess in the first place.

The economy as we know it will decline further until eventually it will probably collapse.
You might find this interesting
http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_21966367/super-sandy-blows-us-kiss?source=email&fb_action_ids=4493646992167&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map={%224493646992167%22%3A367164540043299}&action_type_map={%224493646992167%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:17 PM

17. consumerism...

The individual pursuit of happiness, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is the essence of freedom. We are all at least slightly different. While many folks need for very little and enjoy a surplus from their efforts and savings, some are also month to month or even day to day in making ends meet.

There is no one who should or can be the arbiter of another's habits in personal spending. We each determine how fast we pedal the bicycle of life and choose our own direction to travel. There is not a lone correct path to life's ideal nor even just one ideal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:50 AM

26. Consumerism is not a path, but a destructive societal condition.

Consumerism is unsustainable over-consumption. Each of us chooses. Mindless consumerism, without regard to one's health or the environment is not my choice. I cannot speak for others. It has nothing to do with the pursuit of happiness, the Declaration of Independence, or freedom, or money. It has a lot to do with the future, both personally and globally. Each of us sets an example by the way we live and the choices we make in life. Accumulating junk and depleting natural resources is not progressive. It is suicidal. Gathering weaponry to defend against imaginary foes is not progressive, it is destructive and delusional. Consuming more than we produce is not progressive, it is parasitical. Living in constant fear of others to the point of being constantly armed is not progressive, but defeatist.
There is no correct path in life. The path we choose is unimportant compared with how we conduct ourselves as we travel on whatever path we choose.

If you are really interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:22 PM

32. That is different and they qualified the word and they are changing the Pure Definition of the word.

The root word: consume --

con·sume (kn-sm)
v. con·sumed, con·sum·ing, con·sumes
v.tr.
1. To take in as food; eat or drink up. See Synonyms at eat.
2.
a. To expend; use up: engines that consume less fuel; a project that consumed most of my time and energy.
b. To purchase (goods or services) for direct use or ownership.
3. To waste; squander. See Synonyms at waste.
4. To destroy totally; ravage: flames that consumed the house; a body consumed by cancer.
5. To absorb; engross: consumed with jealousy. See Synonyms at monopolize.
v.intr.
1. To be destroyed, expended, or wasted.
2. To purchase economic goods and services: a society that consumes as fast as it produces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #32)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:26 PM

33. I'm aware of the origin of the word. Who are "they"?

Point is, I made it clear what I mean. There are many meanings to a lot of words, but "consumerism", when used in a social/political context is generally understood to mean the second of the following Merriam-Webster definitions. There is no "pure definition". The word is less than 70 years old. It is a belief system that is destroying our planet.

1
: the promotion of the consumer's interests
2
: the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; also : a preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods

Remember Dubya after 9/11. He recommended we show Bin Laden how tough we were by going out and buying more crap. Kinda like spending your last paycheck on a manicure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #33)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:49 PM

34. they = wiki. and never mind the rest. I am not going to argue semantics or even the lack of

capitalization.

Kind of like the differnce between The Holocaust and a holocaust.

The Age of Consumerism vs. consumerism

I am not that pedantic.

There is a vast differnce between consuming and spending one's last paycheck on a manicure.

There will always be a market for Goods and Services




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:26 PM

6. It's appalling the notion of the freedom to own such things...

 

...can be considered anything but progressive. Freedom of choice leveraged with respect for one's recognition of responsibility that comes with that freedom is always progressive. Apparently you don't feel that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:54 PM

13. I never questioned the freedom to own such things,

just the claim that owning such things is inherently progressive.

A reminder of the statement I was responding to: "as citizens we are progressive in our actions of buying, owning, and carrying firearms."

Your suggestion that I was attacking anyone's "freedom" is false, and it's offensive. Buy your guns, own them, carry them, but don't claim that doing so is inherently progressive.

I await your apology for making the false claims about what I said. An honest person would apologize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:49 PM

40. Don't hold your breath waiting for something you don't deserve.

 

Buying, owning, and carrying firearms is absolutely progressive as is the freedom and responsibilities that go with those activities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 07:36 PM

8. the expandtion of individual freedoms and liberties

by definition that is liberal.

As a party we should work toward avoiding paranoid and propagandistic thinking
While I agree, both sides have the same problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:59 PM

15. If "buying, owning, and carrying" guns is progressive,

then does that mean that a gun owner is more progressive than a non-gun-owner?

Do answer the question. It was an absurd statement, and you defended it.

Is someone who owns 500 guns 500 times as progressive as someone who owns one?

Show some intellectual honesty. The statement I responded to, is it one you support? Otherwise, please condemn it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:14 PM

16. I never said anything about progressive

I said liberal. While some will see that as a distinction without a difference, there is a difference.
to answer your question
number of guns you own has no bearing on how progressive how a person is. Jerry Brown owns more guns than Mitt, and is more progressive than Mitt but the guns don't make Brown progressive. He just happens to be a progressive that owns more guns than Mitt. At the same time, Thom Hartmann owns no guns or bows but is more progressive than Ted Nugent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:42 AM

25. With you 100%.

I think I may have misunderstood your earlier post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:03 PM

9. So the things we own define our ideology.

Is that anti-idol ideology or unthinking consumerism I smell?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:42 PM

11. The type of " paranoid and propagandistic thinking " the NRA touts ?

Obama will take your gun!!!!! Buy bullets at record numbers all trough 2008 !!!! And they did .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:39 PM

18. Posession of them may mean nothing, but prohibition of posession means everything.

 

I agree that as a party we should work toward a more progressive stance but I don't see anything progressive in buying, owning, or carrying any objects other than information.

I have nothing against guns, and I have nothing against Xboxes, but I find appalling the notion that the possession of either of them would be inherently progressive.

As a party we should work toward avoiding paranoid and propagandistic thinking.


But surely you can see that government prohibition of owning objects is not progressive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:40 AM

24. We can -- and I suspect we will -- discuss that elsewhere.

I am specifically addressing a claim made in this thread, that the action of buying, owning, and carrying firearms is innately a progressive action.

Do you agree with that claim? I'm guessing you don't. You have your opinions, but I haven't seen you -- ever -- make a statement so absurd, other than as a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:23 AM

28. Exercising Constitutional rights is a progressive action.

 

So yes, I consider exercising your right to keep and bear arms is a progressive action, as it furthers the progress of freedom.

But my point was that even if you think nothing is progressive about owning firearms, surely you agree that government restriction of owning things is not a progressive ideal? Prohibition is not my idea of progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:25 PM

37. Yes, I see your point

and I see it's a way to protect one of your own from being called out for propaganda and bullshit.

You are using the term "prohibition." Do you find something inherently progressive about buying and drinking alcohol?

It's an inane argument.

I don't think government should prohibit watching FOX News ten hours a day. That doesn't mean that watching FOX News ten hours a day is progressive.

And yes, that's the argument you're supporting.

That's the argument you're defending, and refusing to address head-on.

It's one of the most anti-sanity statements that I've ever seen on DU, or even quoted from free republic, and you're doing your side no favors by refusing to call it for what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 05:42 PM

45. Once again...

 

You are using the term "prohibition." Do you find something inherently progressive about buying and drinking alcohol?

It's an inane argument.


Again you keep missing my point.

There is nothing inherently progressive about buying and drinking alcohol.

There is something very very un-progressive about prohibiting the buying and drinking of alcohol.

I don't think government should prohibit watching FOX News ten hours a day. That doesn't mean that watching FOX News ten hours a day is progressive.

And yes, that's the argument you're supporting.

That's the argument you're defending, and refusing to address head-on.


Are you equating watching right-wing propaganda equates to buying and drinking alcohol or buying and shooting firearms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:57 PM

31. There is nothing 'liberal' or 'progressive" about gun control...

Here is what "Mr. Liberal" from a time not too long ago said:

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary
government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now
appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always
possible."
- Hubert Humphrey (1911-05-27 - 1978-01-13),
_Know Your Lawmakers_, _Guns_ magazine, February 1960, pg. 4.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheWayThingsWork/message/51334

Yep. In Guns Magazine, 1960.

Wanna hear what Mondale had to say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #31)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:21 PM

35. Way to change the topic.

Congrats.

Do you agree with the statement that the action of buying, owning, and carrying a gun is inherently progressive? That's the statement that was made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:19 AM

43. Probably. Certainly it is liberal. Progressive would

just get us into the 20th century, labor movements, socialism and E V Debbs (a big supporter of 2A). arlier, the discussion surrounding passage of the 14th (1868), was dominated by how best ensure the newly-freed slaves could defend themselves by incorporating the federally-guaranteed 2A rights. Congress was war and occupation-weary: Incorporate 2A for the slaves, then clear out of Dodge.

Yeah, it's progressive as well as liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #31)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:54 AM

44. Hus views "evolved" from strong pro- control to less so.

By 1994, he would say:

Gun-control doesn't stop criminals, gun control attracts criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:32 PM

2. Sorry your question is lop sided let me help ,is that all or most republicans or republicans ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:54 PM

12. As If These GOP Politicians are Relevant to the GOP Today



And the majority of their Democratic peers made their position clear at the Democratic convention.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:07 PM

19. Self deleted my post as I didn't know what I was talking about in relation to the OP

Last edited Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #19)


Response to Kaleva (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:43 PM

21. I think you have it confused with the Hughes Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_Gun_Ban

The aptly titled drug “czar” William Bennett—on his first day in office—convinced the Treasury Department to outlaw the import of several models of so-called “assault weapons.” The NRA, attempting to preserve a relationship with the White House, praised the “temporary” import moratorium as providing a cooling-off period for a rational discussion of the “assault weapon” issue.

But a few weeks later, President Bush dramatically expanded the import ban to cover many dozens of additional firearms models. Bush Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater added that President Bush wished that he had the additional authority to simply outlaw the domestic manufacture of so-called “assault weapons.”

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/mags/george-bush-and-the-nra.htm
Not sure if Kopel's account is totally accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:54 PM

22. Yes. That is what I did.

I should have read the OP more carefully then I did but I jumped the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:38 AM

27. 72 Democrats signed an amicus brief in support of Heller vs DC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:22 PM

36. Excuse me, but Jack Brooks was a DEMOCRAT, not a Republican

He was a lifelong NRA member and personally opposed to the semi-auto ban, but he wanted to help get the 1994 crime bill passed. This proved to be a mistake for his career, as Steve Stockman replaced him in Congress that same year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #36)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #39)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:47 PM

42. Hey, no problem

At least your track record is still a lot better than FOX News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #36)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:57 PM

41. Yep

 

he even went to Pres. Clinton on the eve of the vote and told him that if the AWB wasn't removed, then a lot of loyal dems would be defeated in the next election. The rest is history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:16 PM

51. Well, I'm definitely opposed to

automobile control. I have a right to an automobile and the government can't make me register it, insure it, have it inspected, or take a test or have a license to operate it.

Anyone who says otherwise is being unreasonable and violating my rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:30 PM

53. where is that in The Constitution? Driving is not a right. It is a Privledge. Any Night Court Judge

will tell you this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:55 PM

54. Are you trying to create a straw-man? Are you using an analogy to falsely imply that those who

 

own firearms lawfully for home defense, target shooting, hunting, and collecting are somehow unreasonably opposed to the laws relating to firearms?

You haven't declared yourself as one of the irrational gun-grabbers, or one of the wannabe gun-grabbers, but it seems that only such people create such straw-men.

Such people who cannot offer rational arguments in favor of their positions commonly resort to fallacious thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:07 PM

55. And 100% of the Democrats who Endorsed Our 2012 Party Platform

Be it resolved, both parties affirm the need for an AWB!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread