[kentucky_smith]

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1934


http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1950

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/13880641.htm

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1950-L

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/politics/13836348.htm

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/13939258.htm






I count about 5 bills in the state assembly that protects gun rights and creates a castle doctrine for the state (even though there is State court precedent for it)



Notice the sponsors of all these bills in KY General Assembly.

These look nice. Gotta get that ccw now.


*pulls out asbestos underpants*

[Thefabulousfink]

At the state level, there are many pro-gun Democrats, It is the anti-gun Democrat Elites who control the party and their capitol level politicians.

[c_yeager]

State level politics are a completely different thing from the federal level.

[mrmeval]

Some democraps at the state level are or they'd not be in office. I will never vote democrap at the federal level.

[kentucky_smith]

Reagan and Bush 41 have banned more guns than any other presidents.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Reagan and Bush 41 have banned more guns than any other presidents.

Really, then who was it who signed the 1934 NFA (FDR), the 1968 GCA (Johnson) and the 1994 AWB, Lautenberg, and Brady (Clinton)? All three of those bills banned guns.

And speaking of an apropos example, both Clinton and Gore sought the support of the NRA and were endorsed by them as state level politicians. Gore was A-rated as a Senator from TN; before he decided he wanted to be on the national stage and cast the deciding vote for an AWB and promoting licensing of gun owners and further gun restrictions in his 2000 campaign.

I think it is particularly disingenuous of you to suggest Reagan was responsible for banning guns when it was a Democratic controlled House that inserted the poison pill amendment banning new MGs.

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Notice the sponsors of all these bills in KY General Assembly.

These look nice. Gotta get that ccw now.


*pulls out asbestos underpants*

Asbestos Undies are uncomfortable, kentucky.

Truth is, we 2A Dems are starting at the bottom, electing pro-2a folks to dog catcher, water board, soil and conservation and THEN we go higher...city, county, state, and THEN we go national. No secret what the plan is, nor some of the successes we are booking on a state-by-state basis.

Seriously, we are taking knocks for having such luminaries as Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, et al. The difficulty is that folks don't see the many, many local folks, they only see the few rabble rousers at the top of the food chain.

what we often see, here and elsewhere is:

If Boxer, Clinton, Schumer, Kerry are anti-gun and anti-2a (except for themselves) = All the Dems are anti-gun.

Problem being that by that same logic the following becomes true:

If Burns, Delay, Doolittle, and Dorgan are in league with Abramoff = All Republicans are corrupt.

I don't think that all Republicans are corrupt...but in a black/white world, there is no room for the exception.

[DonP]

It's our downstate Dems holding off the Daley/Blago gun grabs here in Illinois. There aren't enough republicans to matter in the legislature.

But Daley and Blago are high profiile Dem's too, so it's hard to pick a side on this. Yes, Boxer, Feinstein and co. are the high visibility profile for the Democrat party and they are supported by the flame throwers (and check writers) over at DU, Daily KOS, Moveon etc. and other sites.

A lot of rank and file Dems take their voting cues from these guys and automatically think that the Dem platform is for more gun control and to ban assault weapons. (I think they finally officially changed it on the "assault weapons" thing, but I'm not sure).

It's a long row to hoe, but if you keep getting gun friendly people in the lower offices, sooner or later some of them will make it to the big time.

The key is to not let them be polluted by the old timers. Barrack Obama might have had an open mind on the second amendment when he was elected, now he's turned into just a meat puppet for Durbin and the Dem leadership.

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

are supported by the flame throwers (and check writers) over at DU, Daily KOS, Moveon etc. and other sites.


They are finding the check writing drying up form KOS...I have had MANY good, clear and concise comments from folks who have had a change of heart on this issue after Katrina, and seeing such things as "Free Speech Zones". People are changing their tune...and I am seeing changes on DU as well. Dunno Moveon. No pay attention to those folks. I think they outlived their usefullness many moons ago.

It's a long row to hoe, but if you keep getting gun friendly people in the lower offices, sooner or later some of them will make it to the big time.

And even if they don't...local politics is where it's at. When you can invite your water board representative out shooting, and she actually joins you, if only for the picnic afterwards, then you win. Pure and simple. No malice, no weird "donation" schemes, just good folks doing what good folks due.

Barrack Obama might have had an open mind on the second amendment when he was elected, now he's turned into just a meat puppet for Durbin and the Dem leadership.

Yes, I have seen this...I am still fuming over the yanking of funding for Hackett. It would seem that when you tell a party chair, "Just stop FUNDING <insert name of anti here> they act like Helen Keller, but when they want to stop funding to serious candidate, they have no problem finding the power of speech. Argh.

We will succeed, but it will take a good decade or so. We are trying to reverse a perception within the populace as a whole that tugs on their heartstrings, and by extension the pure pandering to those very misperceptions.

[kentucky_smith]

Last I checked Jim Brady was Repug, and Reagan openly supported the 1994 Brady Bill, under a Republican-controlled House and Senate. I know it's not really fair after the 1981 shooting, but you would think they would have banned small, cheap .22 pistols?

[SIOP]

Really, then who was it who signed the 1934 NFA (FDR), the 1968 GCA (Johnson) and the 1994 AWB, Lautenberg, and Brady (Clinton)? All three of those bills banned guns.


I think it is particularly disingenuous of you to suggest Reagan was responsible for banning guns when it was a Democratic controlled House that inserted the poison pill amendment banning new MGs.

1934 NFA banned nothing.

1968 GCA banned nothing.

1994 AWB was temporary and has expired.

Reagan is the ONLY president to permanently ban a class of firearms from production. Doesn't make any difference WHO inserted it into the bill, Reagan is the one that enacted it.

[Maxwell]

Problem is theres lots of talk, little action.
Youve got dem Candidate who claims to be for gun rights or (more often) neutral on the issues of firearms ownership... then they get in and start making havoc with our rights.
Its going to take more than donning hunter orange and comming out of the bush with a dead bird to prove your in favor of the 2nd amendment.

I suggest a litmus test.
A dem looking to get my attention should commit some act that proves their for rkba, and trustworthy with my vote.
Preverably something so vile to the left-wing, theres no turning back for them.

Anyone got ideas?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Last I checked Jim Brady was Republican, and Reagan openly supported the 1994 Brady Bill, under a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

But that isn't what you said... You implied Reagan was responsible for banning MGs under the 1986 FOPA (which was a good law, even with the ban) when it was Democrats who inserted it into the bill and the NRA asked Reagan to sign it anyway.

1934 NFA banned nothing.

So it is your contention that applying a $200 tax to firearms (in 1934) isn't a ban? That is a tax of $2,854 in 2005 dollars when adjusted for inflation.

1968 GCA banned nothing.

The 1968 GCA prohibited import of NFA weapons. The 1968 GCA also banned the import of most military surplus rifles. You can't very well argue that Bush 41 banned rifles (especially when he did it by referencing the language of the 1968 GCA) and then argue the 1968 GCA doesn't ban anything.

1994 AWB was temporary and has expired.

But that certainly wasn't the intention when it was signed was it? Claiming this isn't a ban is just silly, I might as well claim that the 1986 ban isn't permanent either because it could theoretically be overturned one day.

Reagan is the ONLY president to permanently ban a class of firearms from production. Doesn't make any difference WHO inserted it into the bill, Reagan is the one that enacted it.

It absolutely makes a difference who inserted it into the bill. Presidents don't get to write legislation or pass it through Congress. They only get to sign it. Reagan signed the bill at the behest of the NRA and he SHOULD have signed it. The 1986 FOPA gave us a lot more than it took. Without it we would have ammo registration, almost no FFLs, no gun shows, no mail order ammo and a host of other burdensome legislation. I'd like to be able to register an NFA weapon made in the last 20 years; but in the big scheme of things, that wasn't a bad trade at all.

[Standing Wolf]

I'll continue to vote Libertarian: both the Republicrats and Democans are shameless anti-Second Amendment bigots.

[SIOP]

But that isn't what you said... You implied Reagan was responsible for banning MGs under the 1986 FOPA (which was a good law, even with the ban) when it was Democrats who inserted it into the bill and the NRA asked Reagan to sign it anyway.



So it is your contention that applying a $200 tax to firearms (in 1934) isn't a ban? That is a tax of $2,854 in 2005 dollars when adjusted for inflation.



The 1968 GCA prohibited import of NFA weapons. The 1968 GCA also banned the import of most military surplus rifles. You can't very well argue that Bush 41 banned rifles (especially when he did it by referencing the language of the 1968 GCA) and then argue the 1968 GCA doesn't ban anything.



But that certainly wasn't the intention when it was signed was it? Claiming this isn't a ban is just silly, I might as well claim that the 1986 ban isn't permanent either because it could theoretically be overturned one day.



It absolutely makes a difference who inserted it into the bill. Presidents don't get to write legislation or pass it through Congress. They only get to sign it. Reagan signed the bill at the behest of the NRA and he SHOULD have signed it. The 1986 FOPA gave us a lot more than it took. Without it we would have ammo registration, almost no FFLs, no gun shows, no mail order ammo and a host of other burdensome legislation. I'd like to be able to register an NFA weapon made in the last 20 years; but in the big scheme of things, that wasn't a bad trade at all.

I don't consider the $200 tax a ban - until Reagan signed the FOPA I could still go out and obtain any NFA item I wanted to at a reasonable price. And you have your inflation argument ass backwards.

Why should we have had to trade anything? Are you saying that Reagan would have called for ammo registration, almost no FFLs, no gun shows, no mail order ammo, and a host of other burdensome legislation if he hadn't got to ban machine guns?

And the NFA and GCA might have banned imports, but they did not ban the American people from manufacturing or selling anything. Just like limiting the import of foreign autos isn't a ban on domestic manufacture or ownership.

Your FOPA argument is apples to oranges. Doesn't matter what else it did, the fact of the matter is that it banned all new production of a class of firearms, a ban that is permanent unless rescinded. The AWB expired with no action having to be taken. It had an expiration date, unlike FOPA.

To be quite honest, you come off sounding just like the Elmer Fudd NRA guy I saw interviewed in September 2004 saying that noone needs to own assault weapons.

[Greg L]

And you also need to realize that many of the Ky level D's are much more conservative than most of the national level R's.

[kentucky_smith]

That's not the way Mitch McConnell tells it.

[antsi]

Asbestos Undies are uncomfortable, kentucky.

Truth is, we 2A Dems are starting at the bottom, electing pro-2a folks to dog catcher, water board, soil and conservation and THEN we go higher...city, county, state, and THEN we go national. No secret what the plan is, nor some of the successes we are booking on a state-by-state basis.

Seriously, we are taking knocks for having such luminaries as Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, et al. The difficulty is that folks don't see the many, many local folks, they only see the few rabble rousers at the top of the food chain.
.

The more conservative state/local dems tend to be from very conservative states and localities. You're right, they're not on the national stage. Once they do get on the national stage, they go anti- just like Gore.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't consider the $200 tax a ban - until Reagan signed the FOPA I could still go out and obtain any NFA item I wanted to at a reasonable price. And you have your inflation argument ass backwards.

The only reason you could buy NFA items at a "reasonable price" was because the tax that was incredibly high in 1934 had been beaten down by inflation by 1986. It was never the intention of FDR that people like you be able to buy those firearms. That was my point, though you may not have understood it.

Why should we have had to trade anything? Are you saying that Reagan would have called for ammo registration, almost no FFLs, no gun shows, no mail order ammo, and a host of other burdensome legislation if he hadn't got to ban machine guns?

Reagan didn't have to call for ammo registration. It was already the law of the land for handgun ammo under the 1968 GCA. Likewise with ATF being able to inspect FFLs out of business, private sales at gun shows not being statutorily exempt from the "doing business in selling firearms" requirement of the 1968 GCA, no mail order ammo, etc.

Those things WERE the law already, though a lot of people forget it or never knew it (http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html). The FOPA legislation had been submitted to Congress every year for seven straight years and every year the Democrats killed it in committee. It was only by careful strategy, a well-planned discharge petition, and hubris on the part of the Democratic leadership that it ever passed the House to begin with. If Reagan had not signed the bill, even with the poison pill, all of the things I mentioned above would STILL be the law and if you think that the same administration that banned ordinary self-loading rifles because they just LOOKED like machineguns wouldn't have banned MGs, well you are a lot more optimistic on that score than I am.

Your FOPA argument is apples to oranges. Doesn't matter what else it did, the fact of the matter is that it banned all new production of a class of firearms, a ban that is permanent unless rescinded.

FOPA did not ban all production. New NFA firearms are still manufactured. FOPA shut the registry so that taxes on new NFA firearms could not be paid and thus could not be legally owned. Since you seem to consider tiny distinctions like that important, I fail to see how you can make them for the 1968 and 1934 bans; but won't make them here. Why is that?

To be quite honest, you come off sounding just like the Elmer Fudd NRA guy I saw interviewed in September 2004 saying that noone needs to own assault weapons.

Maybe if you had a better sense of the legislative history of gun control and the bills we were discussing I would sound less like an Elmer Fudd to you?

[trapperjohn]

as long as the dems get so giddy about redistribution of wealth, i don't see how anyone can use the word "democrat" and "freedom" in the same sentence.

[TexasRifleman]

Why should we have had to trade anything? Are you saying that Reagan would have called for ammo registration, almost no FFLs, no gun shows, no mail order ammo, and a host of other burdensome legislation if he hadn't got to ban machine guns?

Were you over 18 when that happened? I remember it in a very different way than you. I remember that we were in big trouble with that legislation.
Everyone loves to tell the story how the NRA threw us all under the bus because of the MG thing, but the alternative was 1000 times worse.

Would you trade having MG's back for having to fill out Federal paperwork every time you bought ammo for it? Ammo that you could not get from Ammoman, but only at your local store? Not just for your sub guns but for every handgun caliber in existence?

THAT was what the trade off was. Yes it sucks, but it was most certainly a Democratic Congress that built that little jewel of a bill.

Reagan was faced with choosing the lesser of 2 evils. In my opinion given only those 2 choices he made the only one he could.

[SIOP]

(Sigh....) O.K., let me just pose this question to you:

Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency for over five years. What have they done to restore our rights under the 2nd Amendment? And don't start with the sunset of the AWB, that doesn't count because they didn't have to take any action on it. Besides, Bush supported the renewal of the AWB. Please also spare me the argument "He didn't really mean it, he knew it would never get to his desk." He said it. If he didn't mean it, then he's a liar. Plus, he was saying it way back in 1999 before he ever got elected.

The whole point here is that being a Democrat does not automatically make one an enemy of the RKBA, nor does being a Republican make one a supporter of the RKBA. Some of the most ardent RKBA supporters in Congress have been Democrats. Some of the most ardent enemies of the RKBA have been Republicans. And for all the lip service Republicans have given us, they have done almost zip since being in office.

[scout26]

Barrack Obama might have had an open mind on the second amendment when he was elected, now he's turned into just a meat puppet for Durbin and the Dem leadership.

:what: :what: :what: :what: :what: :what:

A Chicago Hyde Park Liberal have an open mind on 2A. :rolleyes:


I think we need to check the instant replay on his voting record as a State Senator......


Survey says ..........

Daleyite Gun Banner !!!!!!! :barf: :barf: :barf:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency for over five years. What have they done to restore our rights under the 2nd Amendment?

First, the Republicans have NOT controlled the Senate for over five years. Remember "Jumping Jim Jeffords"? During the first two years of the Bush administration Democrats controlled the Senate. During the second two years, the Republicans had a 1 vote edge, which is "control" of the Senate in the same way that driving a car with your feet is "control" of your car. It can be done; but it is a little more challenging. Despite that this is what Republicans have accomplished in the past five years:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US (http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/calendar/2001UN/confnews/change_tone.htm)

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_020507.html) - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush signs lawsuit preemption bill (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6719)

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks (http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/9981-1.html)

7. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed (http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-BushSignsCargoPilots031215.html)

8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401270928.asp) that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Bush instead sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

10. Sponsored a few pro-gun bills in the 109th Congress (http://www.gunowners.org/109anatb.htm).

11. Lawsuit preemption bill declares Second an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/10/gun_mfr_liabili.php). Might be useful in front of SCOTUS?

12. House votes for repeal of D.C. gun ban (http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm).

13. Signed exemption for gunsmiths from manufacturing taxes for creating custom firearms (http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ITNDrop=1711-L).

14. Twice "filled the tree" as suggested by GOA on legislation in order to prevent it from being used as a vehicle for an AWB (once in July 2004 on a tort reform bill and again during S.397). I can't find another instance on any bill where the Senate has taken this action for any other group.

15. Bucked public opinion showing 68% of American supported renewal of assault weapons ban (including almost a third of NRA members) (http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_guns_09-06_pr.pdf) to kill ban not once; but three times.

And don't start with the sunset of the AWB, that doesn't count because they didn't have to take any action on it.

So when Republicans sank their own legislation in the Senate, not once; but at least twice (and arguably three times) in order to prevent Feinstein from attaching a renewal to their bill, that doesn't equate to action in your book?

Besides, Bush supported the renewal of the AWB.

Strange that someone who was lecturing me that just because the entire national leadership of the Democratic party is anti-gun, it doesn't mean that all Democrats share their views would ask me to defend the Republican party and then focus solely on Bush.

Look I welcome pro-gun Democrats. I have no desire to base my hopes for gun rights solely on the Republican party. At the same time, anybody running as a Democrat has a few hurdles to clear before I trust them in spite of the horrible record of their party on RKBA>

1) First they must show that they are not just talking about gun rights, they are acting on it by supporting and introducing legislation. Fighting the political battles, etc.

2) They must convince me that they aren't going to get a serious case of Clinton/Gore/Deanitis and reverse their previous primarily pro-gun stance the moment there is a chance in hell they will get a position of power in the national leadership of the Democratic party.

[SIOP]

Bartholomew: The question was "What have they done to restore our rights under the 2nd Amendment?" Not one of the items you listed restored any rights to the American people or resulted in the recission of anti-gun legislation. Ashcroft's 2nd Amendment statement was as worthless as the paper it was written on. The lawsuit preemption act, while laudable (I especially liked the clarification of the 2nd Amendment contained in it), likewise neither restored or rescinded anything.

I had forgotten about Jeffords. But, he didn't jump until Bush had been in office for 6 months or so, so it still stands that Bush has had a majority in Congress for close to 4 years of his term. Even if it had only been for ONE year, wouldn't you think that the party that preached for smaller government, more rights, blah blah blah would have done SOMETHING? Yet, they have done almost zip.

If I recall correctly, Feinstein's AWB renewal DID get attached to the original preemption bill (seems to me the vote was something like 65-35 or thereabouts) which means a bunch of Republicans DID vote for it. Then they had to scuttle it in the end when the public outcry became deafening.

Frankly, I would rather have my testicals torn off by a rabid badger than vote for a Democrat. I hold Republicans in the same esteem.

[kimbernut]

Thanks,BR!

[buzz_knox]

And speaking of an apropos example, both Clinton and Gore sought the support of the NRA and were endorsed by them as state level politicians. Gore was A-rated as a Senator from TN; before he decided he wanted to be on the national stage and cast the deciding vote for an AWB and promoting licensing of gun owners and further gun restrictions in his 2000 campaign.


It was 1988 that Gore switched. While working towards the Democratic primary, he told the NRA that he'd have to switch his pro-rights position officially in order to secure the Democratic nomination. The NRA told him that wouldn't fly, and he told them to bugger off.

[antsi]

--SIOP-------------
The question was "What have they done to restore our rights under the 2nd Amendment?" Not one of the items you listed restored any rights to the American people or resulted in the recission of anti-gun legislation. Ashcroft's 2nd Amendment statement was as worthless as the paper it was written on. The lawsuit preemption act, while laudable (I especially liked the clarification of the 2nd Amendment contained in it), likewise neither restored or rescinded anything.
--------------------

Of course you can parse out a question such that the answer is anti-Republican, but your question "What have they done to restore rights" does not reflect the political realities and realistically electable choices we have.

Having the Republicans in marginal control of the government means that we have not had an all-out Democrat-led assault on our second ammendment rights.

Saying "the AWB would have expired anyway" is disingenuous because under President Kerry with a Democrat controlled Congress, it would not have gone away.

[Silver Bullet]

The issue of which party did what 20 or 30 or 40 years ago is much less interesting to me than what the parties are doing now. And for that, all you have to do is look at voting records.

Who voted for, and who voted against, letting AWB expire ?

Who voted for, and who voted against, the gun industry protection bill ?

[hillbilly]

Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore were from southern states with pro-gun outlooks.

Neither Bill Clinton nor Al Gore showed any signs at all being anti-gun until they got on a national stage.

Once in the White House, they comprised the most anti-gun administration in the 20th Century.

Let me put it very bluntly.

I am a college English instructor. I am from Arkansas, a state that's had only four Republican governors since the end of the Civil War. I even confess to having voted for Caligula Clinton in 1992.

If anyone, and I do mean anyone, should be the freakin' base of the Democrat party, it should be me. By all historical, occupational, and demographic indicators, I should be about as blue as a "blue stater" should get.

However, at present, I wouldn't walk across the street to pour stale piss on a Yellow Dog Democratic Candidate if he were on fire and yelling for help.

You want me back, Dems?

Then fundamentallly change the essential nature of the national party.

So the Dem Kentucky state reps are pro-gun?

Well yippee-freakin-skippee.

Do something about your damn national party.

hillbilly

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Not one of the items you listed restored any rights to the American people or resulted in the recission of anti-gun legislation.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it and I think the evidence I have presented pretty well speaks for itself. If those advancements aren't significant enough for you, I welcome any practical advice you have for making more significant advances in the future; but I think I have adequately demonstrated why "voting Democrat" is probably not the best option.

[SwampWolf]

In deciding which candidate to vote for, lacking any independent knowledge or inside information, I rely on the NRA's rating system. In Ohio, "rank and file" democrats smell just as bad as their national leaders our democratic friends would have us believe have no real impact on our right to keep and bear arms.

Democrats wring their hands over the supposed "misconception" voters have over their anti-gun image. That image, folks, represents the reality of the likes of Feinstein, Dodd(both of them), Schumer, duck-hunting Clinton, quail-hunting Carter, pheasant-hunting Kerry, Kennedy (all of them), Metzembaum, Boxer, Kucinich and so on ad infinitum. And no matter how desperately they try to spin it, democrats have truly earned their sordid anti-second amendment reputation. No amount of fact-twisting, double-talk or outright lying is going to fool those "fly-over" red states the democrats are going to need to realize their gun-grabbing goals.

As a Buckeye aside, I'm not a single party voter and I was seriously considering voting for Ted Strickland, the democratic candidate for the upcoming Ohio's governor's race before Mr. Strickland named extreme anti-gunner (once on the board of Handgun Control) Lee Fisher as his running mate. Democrats just can't seem to resist the impulse to diminish the second amendment anyway they can. Shame on that once proud democratic party, considered by many to have been a "champion of the people", now an extreme left-wing parody of itself.

[RealGun]

There are 13 Democrat members of the House with high GOA ratings. There are no Senators even close. I see the problem as a party dominated by big city politics. Flyover Democrats with guns are just going to have to be more concerned with whom they associate.

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Democrats wring their hands over the supposed "misconception" voters have over their anti-gun image.

You know...my wife calls it a misconception. I think we differ on that issue. i view it as a basically accurate perception.

Having said that, we pro-2a dems are trying to not change the perception of folks *outside* the party, but rather the perception of folks *inside* the party.

They have been told, for a coupla decades now that there is nothing but fear in those innanimate objects. I have had visitors to my house worry that the gun on my hip "would go off" as if it was a haunted object, suddenly granted sovereign intelligence. I have had people as me if I was preparing for WWIII...after bringing out some 500 round cans of ammo to check on corrosion.

What I see often here is that "Dems are unredeemable, therefore we don't need 'em." That is true. We don't need them. There is a big problem there, tho:
Dems make up the OTHER dominant party in our political system. Do we REALLY want to be battling these same battles, arguing these same points, 20years from now? I don't. Wanna go shooting with my daughters and neices and nephews. The only way to do that is to make them friends, not enemies.

No amount of fact-twisting, double-talk or outright lying is going to fool those "fly-over" red states the democrats are going to need to realize their gun-grabbing goals.

No fact-twisting, double-talk or lying needed. We ARE changing the Dems. But we aren't going to slap some paint on a broken down house. We are actually rebuilding it from the inside out.

You can sit and yell and scream and holler, and joke all you want about hillary and schumer and so on, but ultimately, you are doing YOURSELF a disservice: The more you scream and holler, the more that badger stays in it's cozy hole, and you have to deal with that badger for just that much longer.

To my mind of thinkin' it might make more sense to get the badger out of the hole, engage the badger, and then show them that these things aren't what they thought they were.

[Art Eatman]

I have read of discussions on the gun issues by national-level Dem Party strategists. They recognize that they've been hammered on the anti-gun stance.

So the answer in their minds is to APPEAR to not be anti-gun. It does not at all mean that there is any change in belief that Guns Are Bad for we the Great Unwashed.

In general, most Republicans are either pro-gun or neutral. In general, most Democrats are neutral or anti-gun. My opinion, FWIW, but I've been watching this stuff since 1967.

So, since my opinion is that pro-gun candidates generally are less given to interference with my daily life, and a tad less eager to pass laws restricting liberty, the gun-thing is a reasonable litmus test. IMO. Post 9/11 there has been some decline, but I'm generalizing...

Art

[searcher]

Democrats are gun friendly like Nazi's were Jew friendly.

[cuchulainn]

The underlying fallacy of this thread -- and the 50ish others like it on THR over the years -- is that is assumes we loath the Democratic party solely on the basis of guns.

But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend the fallacy is true -- that we vote Republican based only on guns. Fact: The majority of Democrats are anti-gun. Fact: The majority of Republicans are pro-gun. Thus we have four scenarios for political races:


Amost always: Pro-gun R vs. Anti-gun D
Occasional: Both pro-gun (I bet those pro-gun Kentucky Ds had equally pro-gun R opponents).
Rare: Both anti gun (typically exclusive to big cities or NY, MA, CA).
Amost nonexistent: Pro-gun D vs. anti-gun R (I defy anyone to come up with 10 such races in the history of U.S. politics)


Spare us the sophistry. :rolleyes:

[hillbilly]

JJdxpinkpistols, I think I really disagree with you, if I read your post correctly.

You claim that by hollering about Hillary, making Schumer jokes, etc, we are doing ourselves a disservice because the louder we get the more likely the badger is to stay in his hole.

If I understand this correctly, you appear to be saying that if we would just stop pounding on Dems and just try to educate them about guns, then the Dems would come around to our way of thinking.

Well, I'd say your ideas are lofty, grand, noble, and about as applicable as other grand, lofty, noble, utopian models have proven to be uworkable.

People who deliberately choose to stick to irrational orthodoxies cannot be educated.

And I say this as a professional educator.

Granted, there is hope in taking anti-gunners to the range and teaching them to shoot.

Some people can be reached. Some people are antis precisely because they are ignorant.

But people like Feinstein and Schumer cannot be reached. Feinstein has a CCW permit for California.

Her outlook is not based on ignorance, but from a very deep-seated arrogance that she, the "open-minded" superior left-wing know-it-all can handle guns, while the common, ignorant, beer-swilling masses merely aren't equipped like she is, intellectually, to handle guns.

The masses must do what Feinstein says, because she knows, much better than the masses, what is actually good and proper for the masses.

Therefore it is okay for Feinstein to have a CCW permit.

But the thought of Joe Average getting a CCW permit is just horrifying beyond belief to her.

Chuck Schumer....there are pictures of Chuck Schumer on a range, firing a Tech-9 just before the AWB passed.

Chuch Schumer knows guns. But he suffers from the same brand of lefty elitism so characteristic of the national Dem party.

He wants to ban guns because the "little people" just can't handle guns.

That's the problem with lots of the national party leadership, JJdxpinkpistols.

They are anti-gun not because they are ignorant of guns.

They are anti-gun because having guns makes the "little people" less dependent upon the lefty elites, and that just won't do for the lefty elites.

So yes, I think that many anti-gunners, even lefty anti-gunners can be reached by taking them to a range and educating them.

But the leaders of the Dem party, the hard-line lefty elitists, cannot be reached.

You are not going to modify Hillary's outlook by taking her to a range.

Now, you would most certainly see Hillary go shoot guns if she thought it would get her some votes.

Hell, there are already file photos of her hubbie "slick willy" carrying a shotgun and dead ducks and wearing camo in an effort to get votes.

But Hillary and Schumer and Kennedy and Boxer, et al, cannot be "educated" out of their positions, because they hold their positions for reasons very different than mere ignorance about guns.

hillbilly

[antsi]

----quote-----------
Now, you would most certainly see Hillary go shoot guns if she thought it would get her some votes.
----------------------

That is the only prediction I am making about the next presidential campaign - if Hillary runs, there will be a media event featuring her shooting guns. I am thinking most likely a skeet or trap shooting type setting.

The hard-core left-wing gun-ban crowd will see this for what it is: a media event that means nothing, and they will have confidence she will revert to her true nature after the election.

Unfortunately some gun owners will be fooled. "Hey, look! There's Hillary shooting skeet! Maybe she'll let me keep my AR-15 after all!"

[scout26]

Amost nonexistent: Pro-gun D vs. anti-gun R (I defy anyone to come up with 10 such races in the history of U.S. politics)

I can name one big one from here in Illinois: The 2000 Governors Race. Glenn Poshard (D) and George Ryan (R).

I worked for Poshard's campaign. He is/was pro-2A/RKBA/CCW. It is my firm belief that had he been elected, Illinois would be one of the 47 states with CCW.

George Ryan is/was anti-2A/RKBA/CCW. He also emptied Death Row of all the murderers/rapists/pedophiles in the state. He is currently being tried in Federal court on several counts of corruption and burning seven children to death in their mini-van.

There is a special place in hell waiting for him.

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Even Clinton was quite pro-gun in Arkansas. Once it got national, he wanted to impress his friends on the left coast, he got religion about gun control.

If the Democrats are smart, they'll tell Kali, Illinois, Neu York, and Mass to keep their yaps shut, and not pursue any gun controls.

[Art Eatman]

"The underlying fallacy of this thread -- and the 50ish others like it on THR over the years -- is that is assumes we loath the Democratic party solely on the basis of guns."

Oh, Lord, no, cuchalainn! There are multitudes of reasons to loathe the left. But this is a gun board. I don't bother listing the other umpteen-hundred reasons.

However, note that I'm fairly specific about the Democratic party: I speak of the national-level leadership, mostly, when I gripe about the Dems. I sometimes speak of state leadership when it's notably leftist; The Ann Richards appointees in Texas come to mind. Local level and quite often at the state level, there are many good Democratic electees.

:D, Art

[beerslurpy]

Hillary might actually convince some gun owners if she was discovered to be an AK or AR owner and supported the rights of ordinary citizens to own the same.

However, her voting record already speaks pretty eloquently on her RKBA views. I beleive she tried to poison the commerce in arms bill and to renew the AWB. Same problem as with Kerry. An established anti-gun voting record and no sincere desire to change course except for photo oppotunities.

[hwp]

Why do I get the feeling that all anti gun democrat politicians have to do to appease the pro 2nd amendment democrats is "not talk about guns"?

You guys remember that farce of some mining union in wva or some silly bunch like that giving john kerry a shotgun to show he "wasn't against guns"?

How anyone that supports the 2nd amendment can also support out of touch organized labor, providing middle class lives to lazy welfare reciepients, depending on the UN for our national security, and supporting the democrat hatred for conservative white men is beyond me.

I'm sure we have a whole lot of pro 2nd dog catchers and road supervisors somewhere but the democraps that have an impact on my life are in DC and they make me sick.

[355sigfan]

Some democraps at the state level are or they'd not be in office. I will never vote democrap at the federal level.
END QUOTE

If Bush were able to run again I would vote democrate heck I would even vote for Clinton over Bush. I just hope the Republicans will run a canidate who is not a complete and utter moron this time.
Pat

[355sigfan]

How anyone that supports the 2nd amendment can also support out of touch organized labor, providing middle class lives to lazy welfare reciepients, depending on the UN for our national security, and supporting the democrat hatred for conservative white men is beyond me
END QUOTE

I support organized labor. Its the only way the hard working middle class workers can protect themselves from big buisness that scews with them every chance they get. We need a social safety net like welfare and social security. Or would you rather push our old people out on the street like Bush. Welfare should be limited and ithas been to 5 years. I actually think we should go to workfare. Give people meanial jobs for their welfare check. Hate applies more to the radical right in the republican party right now. They hate the middle class (trying to take overtime money ext), they hate seniors (social security rip off), the hate youth (Killing young people by staying in Iraq well past when we should have left). There is a lot of crap on both sides of the political isle in Washington. Republicans are not the hero's you think they are.
Pat

[beerslurpy]

Welfarism killed the roman republic and it will kill us too unless we wise up. We are spending 1.5 trillion a year feeding and medicating the old and poor and it is only going to get more expensive as time goes on. Nearly a 1/3rd of the population is taking from the system while the other 2/3rds pay in. Is this sustainable?

[hwp]

"I support organized labor. Its the only way the hard working middle class workers can protect themselves from big buisness that scews with them every chance they get. "

Organized labor screws itself and paves the road to mexico for your beloved low skill high pay jobs. While I support union "ideals" and am more "buy American" than 99% of the general public I fail to see how getting jobs moved to Mexico is good for the workers or the USA. Labor unions are the sole reason two of the once great American companies (GM and Ford) in the world are on the verge of collapse. Hard to compete when Ford has to pay someone $29/hr when Toyota builds cars in the US for less than half the labor rate of the union shops making cars in the US.

"We need a social safety net like welfare and social security. Or would you rather push our old people out on the street like Bush."

People should not depend on the government for financial security young or old. The Bush statement is just plain silly. You are not taken seriously when you talk like that. For future reference you may want to just make your point without the trash speak for shock value. This is not CNN or NPR so lay off with the silliness.

"Hate applies more to the radical right in the republican party right now. They hate the middle class (trying to take overtime money ext), they hate seniors (social security rip off), the hate youth (Killing young people by staying in Iraq well past when we should have left)."

Democrats HATE conservative white men. I wonder why you avoided responding to that comment? I guess it is just easier to dodge the truth and spout off how republicans hate middle class, seniors, and young people. BTW, who is taking away OT? I work OT every week to my disdain. I don't know what "ext" means in your post so maybe you are talking about something other than the common meaning of overtime?

"There is a lot of crap on both sides of the political isle in Washington."

I agree 100%.

"Republicans are not the hero's you think they are."

Did I say that? Nope. Do I consider them my hero's? Nope. While the pickins' may be slim in DC the democraps are the worst of the bunch at this time.

[Justin]

Pat, how come you don't use the Quote function?

[355sigfan]

I seemed to have lost the quote funciton. I need to set up my control panel.
Pat

[355sigfan]

Did I say that? Nope. Do I consider them my hero's? Nope. While the pickins' may be slim in DC the democraps are the worst of the bunch at this time.
END QUOTE

I am not so sure anymore. As for blaming unions for jobs going south thats a stretch. People have a right to make a fair wage. Without unions many people would not get that. As one who has been screwed by big buisness I am gratefull to unions. Their not perfect but their necessary.

People should not depend on the goverment but the government should give people a helping hand if they need it. The great depression showed us that not all social programs are bad. And some are down right necessary. My comments about Bush were honest and heart felt and not for shock value. I have utter contempt for the man and I voted for him the first time around.

As for overtime. Bush changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in regards to overtime. He made it far easier for big buisness to screw people out of their overtime pay. He added far more loopholes. In fact at first he screwed cops, fire fighters and other first responders. He took so much political heat that he changed that and made first responders exempt from the changes. Who benefited from these changes. Workers, no, tax payers no. Only big buisness benefited. The man is a slug. I am almost hoping for a democratic president just to re-establish some grid lock and order. Bush has raised the defict to all time high levels again. This after Clinton had us running with a surplus.
Pat

[RealGun]

A word about political party names

It may seem trendy to use names like "Democrap", but at the same time one might think you adolescent to do so. The name is Democrat, never "Democratic". There are also those with legitimate ties to the Democrat Party who would certainly appreciate a correct reference to their party of choice. The flip side is that one might react negatively if their own party of choice was referred to by way of pejoratively altered name.

Can we take it that "Democrap", "Repugnican" and the like is not The High Road?

[Silver Bullet]

Or would you rather push our old people out on the street like Bush. Welfare should be limited and ithas been to 5 years. I actually think we should go to workfare. Give people meanial jobs for their welfare check. Hate applies more to the radical right in the republican party right now. They hate the middle class (trying to take overtime money ext), they hate seniors (social security rip off), the hate youth (Killing young people by staying in Iraq well past when we should have left). There is a lot of crap on both sides of the political isle in Washington. Republicans are not the hero's you think they are.

OT

[beerslurpy]

quote function has been gone for a few days now.

[hwp]

Just to simplify things, the last time a democ**p :neener: was in office guns got banned.

GW among his many failures has not banned any guns.

I admit GW is not the president I thought he would be and I am :cuss: mad as heck about his immigration policies but I still think he is better than any democrat I can think of and that shows the all time low depths the democrats have reached.

[CAnnoneer]

+1 hwp #48

The quote function can be done manually by typing:
1) at the beginning - open quare bracket, type "quote", close square bracket
2) at the end - open square bracket, division sign, type "quote", close square bracket

like this

[SIOP]

In fact at first he screwed cops, fire fighters and other first responders. He took so much political heat that he changed that and made first responders exempt from the changes. Who benefited from these changes. Workers, no, tax payers no. Only big buisness benefited.

Gee, I don't know about where you're from, but around here, and everywhere else I've ever lived in my life, firefighters, cops, and first responders work for the government, ergo the taxpayer. So how did the overtime rules that affected them benefit big business?

[355sigfan]

QUOTE
Just to simplify things, the last time a democ**p was in office guns got banned.

GW among his many failures has not banned any guns.
END QUOTE

Remember Bush sr. The 1989 semi auto import ban. Remember the 1986 machinegun ban guess who was president then.

QUOTE
Gee, I don't know about where you're from, but around here, and everywhere else I've ever lived in my life, firefighters, cops, and first responders work for the government, ergo the taxpayer. So how did the overtime rules that affected them benefit big business?
END QUOTE

Please take more time next time you read my posts. He changed overtime rules for everyone. Then he took political heat from people because he screwed cops, firefighters and ems. Then he restored us back to the way it was. But everyone one else who works for private enterprise and the government is scewed. looked it up. That was the straw that broke the camels back for me. Thats why I voted libertarian in the last election.
Pat

[scout26]

To bring this back on-topic.

"Some" local and state level Democrats are gun friendly (I.E. The Democrat State Senators and Representatives from Southern Illinois.)

"Some" local and state level Democrats are Anti-Gun (I.E. Chicago and Cook County Democrats: Mayor Daley, Gov. Blagojevich, The Cook County Board, Chicago Aldermen, State Senators and Representatives from Chicago.)

"Most" National Democrats are Anti-Gun (Feinstein, Schumer, Clinton, Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy, Obama, e.g "The Leaders of the Party")

Can someone name five "National" Democrats that are pro-gun ???

[ThreadKiller]

So the Democrats say they're "gun friendly" now? Reminds me of the old story of the young Indian brave who brings a nearly frozen rattlesnake down off a mountaintop only to be bitten. The brave wonders why, after helping the snake, he is bitten.

"You knew what I was when you picked me up," hissed the snake.

As long as Senator Teddie (D-Chappaquiddick) is a poster boy for the Democratic Party, don't for one second believe they're "gun friendly."

[RealGun]

Can someone name five "National" Democrats that are pro-gun ???

Democrat House members with GOA rating of A or B:

Alabama - Cramer
Arkansas - Ross
Louisiana - Melancon
Maine - Michaud
Minnesota - Peterson
Mississippi - Taylor
Ohio - Strickland
Tennessee - Davis, Gordon, Tanner
Virginia - Boucher
West Virginia - Mollohan, Rahall

It's important for these folks to get proper credit.

[U.S.SFC_RET]

Let's make it real simple. Democrats will never get elected to the Presidencial office if they are pro gun period. Big inner city will never elect pro gun democrats. Democrats thrive on their ticket based on the reliance of fear. More guns means more death "do you want that?" tactic. Works for votes.

[cuchulainn]

Me: The underlying fallacy of this thread -- and the 50ish others like it on THR over the years -- is that is assumes we loath the Democratic party solely on the basis of guns.

Art Eatman: Oh, Lord, no, cuchalainn! There are multitudes of reasons to loathe the left. But this is a gun board. I don't bother listing the other umpteen-hundred reasons.My point was that these threads trying to convince us that the "Democrats are gun friendly" seem to assume that it's only about guns for us -- that we'd somehow vote for the Dems if only we got past the gun issue. But, as you note, a multitude of other issues disqualify the Dems without even considering guns.

However -- looking at just guns -- invariably, in any race, the R is either better or just as good as the D. Thus, I'm going to vote R regardless of guns. The only time I'd have any dilemma (gun-wise) is if the D were more pro-gun than the R -- but that never happens.

Thus, I'll repeat my challenge: I defy anyone to come up with 10 races -- in the history of U.S. politics -- where the D was better than the R on guns.RealGun: It's important for these folks to get proper credit.I bet their Republican opponents have been equally pro-gun (or better). Thus, it's important to vote against these exception-to-the rule pro-gun Democrats and put people in office who are just as pro-gun, but better on a multitute of other issues.

[RealGun]

I bet their Republican opponents have equally pro-gun (or better). Thus, it's important to vote against them and put people in office who are just as good on guns but better on many other issues.

Michaud of Maine was rated higher than his Republican opponent. However, the opponent was rated on response to a questionnaire. Michaud was the incumbent and had a voting record.

Melancon (D) and Romero (R) of the 03 district of Louisiana were equally high rated. Melancon won the election for the open seat (both rated on questionaires alone).

Peterson of Minnesota was the incumbent Democrat with an A rating. The Republican opponent, Sturrock, was not rated, i.e. blew off the GOA questionaire.

The others pretty much support your point.

[cuchulainn]

RealGun: Melancon (D) and Romero (R) of the 03 district of Louisiana were equally high rated. :) Actually, there have been plenty more races where the D and R were equally good (or equally bad) -- but that's different from what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about races where the D is better than the R on guns -- where the gun issue would give me pause in voting R. You've come up with two (one, really, but I'll give you "blew off the GOA questionnaire" [What about the NRA rating?]).

Eight more to go folks. Just eight races -- among the hundreds of thousands of races in the history of U.S. politics, from dog catcher to POTUS, from the 1850s when the Rs formed to 2006 -- where the Democrat was better than the Republican on guns.RealGun: The others pretty much support your point. Thank you. :)

[cuchulainn]

RealGun: Melancon (D) and Romero (R) of the 03 district of Louisiana were equally high rated. :) Actually, there have been plenty more races where the D and R were equally good (or equally bad) -- but that different from what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about races where the D is better than the R on guns -- where the gun issue would give me pause in voting R. You've come up with two (one, really, but I'll give you "blew off the questionairre").

Eight more to go folks. Just eight races -- among the hundreds of thousands of races in the history of U.S. politics, from dog catcher to POTUS, from the 1850s when the Rs formed to 2006 -- where the Democrat was better than the Republican on guns.RealGun: The others pretty much support your point. Thank you. :)

[lostone1413]

The question is who is less anti gun. With the Republicans in control of everything I can't see were they remember us gun owners. Oh yes the protection bill. I for one with the amendments don't look at that as pro gun. Not for us anyway. Oh then the AWB expired. That came up before what everyone thought would be a close election. Then don't forget if it wasn't for the Republican controled Senate we would nnever had the AWB to begin with. I for one will vote 3rd party for now on. After 40 years of voting Republican they have showed me one thing. Since 911 they have done more to destroy the Republic then any leadership i've seen in DC in my life

[cuchulainn]

lostone1413: Then don't forget if it wasn't for the Republican controled Senate we would nnever had the AWB to begin with.
The Republicans weren't in control of the Senate when the AWB passed.

[lostone1413]

Bet they were if you look back they controled the Senate both terms Clinton was in

[lostone1413]

GOP keeps Senate control; Clinton, Carnahan win for Democrats
By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Republicans retained their hold on the Senate for two more years Tuesday though by a narrower margin, as Democrats boasted history-making triumphs by first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in New York and a dead governor in Missouri.


Do a search type in Senate control Clinton years

[cuchulainn]

lostone1413: Bet they were if you look back they controled the Senate both terms Clinton was inThe Republicans didn't gain control of the Senate until the November 1994 election. The AWB passed two months before that, in September 1994 under a Democratic-controlled Senate. Sorry, but you're simply wrong about the Republican-controlled Senate being partly responsible for the AWB. :)

[Don Gwinn]

Just to be contrary, I will again throw out George Ryan vs. Glenn Poshard for the Governor of Illinois. 1998. Ryan is an anti-gun, corrupt, and much-hated Republican. Poshard is a pro-gun, pro-CCW Democrat.

Ryan won and proceeded to screw gun owners. I can't help but wonder how many gun owners voted for him because he had an "R" after his name.

[Hollowdweller]

I'd say among the voters that pro or neutral gun rights democrats are in the majority.

One reason that there was gun control during Clinton/Gore was Columbine. This created a great pressure for it.

I think the national party knows it is a loser issue. I believe as a result of Gov. Dean's 50 state strategy you'll see a shift in this issue in the party.

I believe that they have come to understand that pandering to the gun control wishes of urbanized states with large numbers of electoral votes will not give them as much success as trying to get votes everywhere.

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

I believe as a result of Gov. Dean's 50 state strategy you'll see a shift in this issue in the party.

Yes, but i am a little queesy at that prospect too. the 2A is a FEDERAL guarantee of rights...not a state-by-state guarantee. until the Dem masses actually comes right out and says that in an affirmation of the positive, then I will be a bit queesy at the 50 state strategy.

We SHOULD be able to drive with a gun on our lap from Seattle to Miami with not so much as a blink of an eye. That is a guaranteed right, as I see it.

Now, *why* do I continue to vote for Dems? See, my litmus test is something different that we see on this board (see my handle if you have a doubt as to what that might be).

BUT, I personally reach out to everyone with a (D) after their name to invite them shooting, and enjoy a day in the wood poking holes in eeeeevil pieces of paper tacked to cardboard boxes.

I figure that having that fewer outright enemies can't hurt, and some of these folks on the water and soil conservation boards, and dogcatcher, and county commissioner and so on have turned out to be actual friends of the 2a.

[antsi]

------quote----------
I think the national party knows it is a loser issue. I believe as a result of Gov. Dean's 50 state strategy you'll see a shift in this issue in the party.
---------------------

1. Shift, as in, a real fundamentally different approach and actually advocating different kinds of policies?

2. Or, Shift, as in, pretend to change until the elections are over, then put Dianne Fienstein and Ted Kennedy back in charge of gun policy again?

I'm thinking #2 is a LOT more realistic. I'm hoping I'm wrong, because if the Democrats were genuinely pro gun that would pressure the Republicans to go even stronger in support of gun rights if they want gun owners votes. But I am not holding my breath, either.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

WASHINGTON — Republicans retained their hold on the Senate for two more years Tuesday though by a narrower margin, as Democrats boasted history-making triumphs by first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in New York and a dead governor in Missouri.

You realize the news article you are quoting refers to the 2000 Senate elections? i.e. - 6 years and three elections after the AWB passed the Senate?

One reason that there was gun control during Clinton/Gore was Columbine. This created a great pressure for it.

Actually almost all of the gun control passed during the Clinton/Gore admininstration was passed BEFORE Columbine. 1994 was a banner year for gun control for example.

I think the national party knows it is a loser issue. I believe as a result of Gov. Dean's 50 state strategy you'll see a shift in this issue in the party.

I certainly hope you are correct; but given Gov. Dean's own shift away from pro-gun issues during his primary run, I remain less optimistic.

I believe that they have come to understand that pandering to the gun control wishes of urbanized states with large numbers of electoral votes will not give them as much success as trying to get votes everywhere.

I believe that the current Democratic party thinks they can pursue the same legislative goals without being punished by pro-gun voters if they just wrap it up in a fancier package. Hopefully, they will realize we aren't all ignorant yokels and can recognize the difference between words and action. Here is to hoping the Democratic party reforms and shows some action on the issue.

[hwp]

Ok lostone is in the wrong decade. Check your info. The deciding vote on the AWB was algore. Remember yet?

and this surprised me
Democrat House members with GOA rating of A or B:

Alabama - Cramer
Arkansas - Ross
Louisiana - Melancon
Maine - Michaud
Minnesota - Peterson
Mississippi - Taylor
Ohio - Strickland
Tennessee - Davis, Gordon, Tanner
Virginia - Boucher
West Virginia - Mollohan, Rahall


I am glad at least 6.47% of house democraps are pro gun. That number is lower than the amount of full blown communist in the democrap side of the house. Hardly a number to get excited about. How anyone that likes guns/shooting/the 2nd amendment enough to come on THR and still votes for these fools is beyond me.

It is a cultural problem in the democatic party. Of the eye-popping 13 out of 201 democraps in the house that are considered gun friendly only two come from outside the south.

I sure can't see how the democraps appeal to anyone except urban liberals, minorities, and the ever shrinking organized labor elements. Two elections in a row and the democraps only get votes from urban dumps. That tells me all I need to know.

[RealGun]

Yes, but i am a little queesy at that prospect too. the 2A is a FEDERAL guarantee of rights...not a state-by-state guarantee.

Then freedom of speech, property rights et al can also not be protected from infringement by States, even if guaranteed by a State constitution. Folks need to acknowledge the Civil War and its outcome, fully considering what the 14th Amendment really says.

See http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/right-to-keep.html

quoting the concluding paragraphs:

" Thus, the states may regulate certain aspects of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, but may not prohibit its exercise altogether.

Conclusion

Supreme Court jurisprudence coupled with the intent of the Framers makes clear that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment so as to protect this right from state infringement. As Americans celebrate the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, it is evident that the Second Amendment is not an embarrassing relic to hide in the closet, but is as essential to human freedom as is any other fundamental right."

For further good reading, back up to the index page at http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles.html

[RealGun]

I'd say among the voters that pro or neutral gun rights democrats are in the majority.- Hollowdweller

If this is even remotely true, they will have to insist that Democrats in Congress and other levels of legislature back off on the issue of gun control. Otherwise it appears to be a ludicrous argument, a lie hoping to gain votes...a smile on your face and a knife behind your back.

[buzz_knox]

The Republicans didn't gain control of the Senate until the November 1994 election. The AWB passed two months before that, in September 1994 under a Democratic-controlled Senate. Sorry, but you're simply wrong about the Republican-controlled Senate being partly responsible for the AWB.

To complete the picture, Clinton credited passage of the AWB and efforts of the NRA as giving the Republicans the Senate.

[Master Blaster]

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1293715yes they are they are so friendly that they have offered to store all of you guns for you, so you and your children wont get hurt by them.

And here is a picture of them in 2004, they are smiling because they just voted to ban all armour piercing rifle rounds, You know like .30-.30 and anything more powerful than that.

[davec]

http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/el_roosevelt1.gif
http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/el_roosevelt2.gif

Eleanor Roosevelt packed heat, and was a good shot.

She carried for over 25 years.

Pro Gun Democrat.

[scout26]

Eleanor Roosevelt packed heat, and was a good shot.

She carried for over 25 years.

Pro Gun Democrat.

And quite dead. Also currently not running for any office.

Please try again.

How about this challenge: Name 5 (or more) Pro-Gun US Senators with a (D) after their name ?

[NotOneMore]

In fact, the site is trying something a little different - polling all candidates for the US House and Senate to find out how they'd vote on gun legislation:

http://www.a2dems.net/campaign2006/speakout-tx.htm

This is just the Texas candidates for now. I think I like this Dan Dodd feller.

Hopefully, more candidates will start weighing in soon. This project just got started a few weeks ago, so keep your fingers crossed...

[RealGun]

How about this challenge: Name 5 (or more) Pro-Gun US Senators with a (D) after their name ? - scout26

That's easy. According to GOA, there aren't any, and that's why pro-gun Dems in the House tend not to get any credit.

[NotOneMore]

What parameters will you use to define a pro-gun Democratic Senator?

If you want to use the 2004 vote to reauthorize the semi-auto ban, I can tell you that Russ Feingold, Harry Reid, and Mary Landrieu all voted against reauthorization. Does that help?

[fallingblock]

"Democrats are gun-friendly"
**********************************************************

Not at the national level, and increasingly not at the state level in the east and mid-western states.

Who's barrow is kentucky_smith pushing?:rolleyes:

[Master Blaster]

In other news:

The sky is green with purple polka dots and two suns!!!

The moon is made of green cheese.

The check is in the mail.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you want to use the 2004 vote to reauthorize the semi-auto ban, I can tell you that Russ Feingold, Harry Reid, and Mary Landrieu all voted against reauthorization. Does that help?

Well, it is a little misleading since Russ Feingold also voted for Ted Kennedy's "Let's ban .30-30 ammo by name as armor piercing" amendment during the same debate (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00028).

[rangerruck]

so was al gore, before going national, Joe lieberman was pro school voucher, before going national, teddy was anti abortion, before going national, and prob having some of his girlfriends having some, even billary is talking about abortion being wrong and we need to do everything we can to limit abortions. now do you really believe her? 'cuz if you do i got some great stuff to sell you.

[Silver Bullet]

I looked up the Senate vote on the Gun Industry Shield, and I count Rs and Ds as follows:

Voting Republicans in favor of the Shield:
50 to 2, or 96.15%.

Voting Democrats in favor of the Shield:
14 to 29, or 32.56%.

Does that seem like gun-friendly Democrats to you ?

[Dan from MI]

I'm glad there are pro-2a democrats.

That said, money talks, and leadership talks. John Conyers on judiciary? Chuck Schumer? Dianne Feinstein? The Levin brothers? Debbie Stabenow. Ted Kennedy? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Dick Durbin? Carolyn McCarthy. John Kerry? How come I always see those names banning guns.

As for money, Moveon.org started as a gun grabbing and pro-Clinton organization - by two rich Californians. George Soros is the top democrat funder in the country and started his own gun grabbing organization(and funds others).

If democrats returned to the working class and Jeffersonian roots that their leadership ABANDONED for rich Manhattanites and Hollywood, I would consider them.

It was 2/3 republicans and 1/4 democrats that got CCW in Michigan. It was democrats who tried to derail it. 3/4 of the US senate democrats voted to ban all centerfire ammunition. That was last year, and included "moderates" like Evan Bayh.

I'll stick with the Republicans. They aren't perfect, but they gave us conceal carry in Michigan. They stopped the gun show ban despite traitors like McCain.

And if it wasn't for Republicans, the ban on frivolous lawsuits would not ever happen.

[Dan from MI]

Thus, I'll repeat my challenge: I defy anyone to come up with 10 races -- in the history of U.S. politics -- where the D was better than the R on guns.

I can name two.

Sharon Renier vs Joe Schwarz (Congress, Michigan District 7). Schwarz won because conservatives split the primary vote. Renier was unpopular among a lot of democrats because she was pro-gun and pro-life.

Glenn Poshard vs George Ryan (Illinois Governor).

[SIOP]

I looked up the Senate vote on the Gun Industry Shield, and I count Rs and Ds as follows:

Voting Republicans in favor of the Shield:
50 to 2, or 96.15%.

Voting Democrats in favor of the Shield:
14 to 29, or 32.56%.

Does that seem like gun-friendly Democrats to you ?

While that's true, it is also true that 20% of Senate Republicans voted FOR inclusion of an extension of the assault weapons ban when the act was being voted on in 2004.

[Dan from MI]

Let's not forget that Harry Reid and Mary Landrieu voted for the gun show ban that Klinton pushed through after Columbine. The only democrat who supports gun shows is Max Baucus, and he caved on the AWB back in 93/94 (although has been better since)

The ONLY pro-2a democrats in the senate are/were Zell Miller and Ben Nelson.

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore were from southern states with pro-gun outlooks.

Neither Bill Clinton nor Al Gore showed any signs at all being anti-gun until they got on a national stage.

Once in the White House, they comprised the most anti-gun administration in the 20th Century.

Let me put it very bluntly.

I am a college English instructor. I am from Arkansas, a state that's had only four Republican governors since the end of the Civil War. I even confess to having voted for Caligula Clinton in 1992.

If anyone, and I do mean anyone, should be the freakin' base of the Democrat party, it should be me. By all historical, occupational, and demographic indicators, I should be about as blue as a "blue stater" should get.

However, at present, I wouldn't walk across the street to pour stale piss on a Yellow Dog Democratic Candidate if he were on fire and yelling for help.

You want me back, Dems?

Then fundamentallly change the essential nature of the national party.

So the Dem Kentucky state reps are pro-gun?

Well yippee-freakin-skippee.

Do something about your damn national party.

hillbilly


Guess what hillbilly? Ain't happenin'. Kali, Illinois, and Neu York control the national party, and they aren't gonna let other Dems have the party back. The leftists are controlling the Party, much as Neo-Cons are controlling the Republicans, and refused to hand any control back to the more real Conservative or libertarian forces amongst them