Dems Tout Second Amendment, but Voting RecordsShow Hostility


PDA






sm
November 17, 2003, 02:22 PM
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200311\POL20031117a.html



Dems Tout Second Amendment, but Voting Records Show Hostility
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
November 17, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - A year before the 2004 presidential election, major Democratic candidates have moderated their rhetoric on firearms, trying not to alienate voters who own guns, while also carefully reassuring liberal voters of their continued support for gun control.

However, CNSNews.com's extensive review of the candidates' votes and statements on firearms policy shows that those with congressional experience have anything but a moderate voting record.

In the 2000 race, former Vice President Al Gore lost three battleground states - Arkansas, his home state of Tennessee and West Virginia, each by six or fewer percentage points - in part because he was unable to shed the anti-gun image he developed during the Democratic primary contest.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who has voted with gun-control proponents 100 percent of the time, views sportsmen as an important constituency. Just last month, with a shotgun in hand, Kerry had reporters follow him on a pheasant hunt in Iowa.

The current Democratic frontrunner, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has no congressional track record to explain. Instead, he has stressed his endorsements from the National Rifle Association, while serving as Vermont's governor, in a concerted attempt to reach out to pro-gun Democrats.

Even Dean appears to be trying to have it both ways with his campaign rhetoric, according to groups that defend the Second Amendment and rate politicians on the issue.

The other leading contenders, including retired Gen. Wesley Clark, U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, fit into a similar pattern, according to pro-gun groups.

The Democrats' rhetoric mirrors a strategy outlined last month by the Democratic Leadership Council and Americans for Gun Safety. The groups touted a survey that showed a Democrat who endorsed the Second Amendment and supported reasonable gun control would defeat a pro-gun Republican.

Gun-rights advocates aren't buying the strategy of these "camouflage candidates," as they are sometimes called.

"Revisionist history might work with politicians, but it certainly doesn't work with NRA members," said Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist. "Our membership is a very loyal and political savvy group of people who believe deeply in their freedoms and vote accordingly."

Cox told CNSNews.com the NRA wouldn't support candidates who lie about their stance on guns. He called it political double-talk.

Supporting the Second Amendment?

Even though gun control hasn't played as large a role thus far as it did when Gore and former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley squared off in 2000, Dean and Kerry recently engaged in a spat over the issue.

Kerry's pheasant hunt last month was aimed at bolstering his image among sportsmen. He has earned an F rating from Gun Owners of America and the NRA for his voting record. But Kerry also used the setting to attack Dean's stance on firearms.

"Howard Dean and I have huge difference[s] on guns and what's appropriate," Kerry said at the presidential debate in Boston earlier this month. "I don't want to be the candidate of the NRA in this country. I don't think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA."

Dean did receive an A rating from the NRA in 2000, but in the current presidential campaign, he has occasionally articulated gun-rights positions drastically at odds with those like the NRA and Gun Owners of America.

"I support the assault weapons ban," Dean said at the Boston debate. "I do not support the elimination of liability for gun owners. I support background checks. And I support background checks for people who buy guns at gun shows."

Switching positions or posing for photos is nothing new, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. He told CNSNews.com that former President Bill Clinton used the tactic along with other Democrats looking for the support of gun owners.

"Democrats assume that if we see them with a gun in their hand, they must be pro-gun," Pratt said. "Just because they went sport shooting doesn't tell us that they're pro-gun. That shows you what they don't understand about the issue. Self-defense is just not in their worldview."

The other candidates - Clark, Gephardt and Lieberman - haven't made as much noise about the Second Amendment as Dean and Kerry, but they generally fall in line with positions advocated by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Gephardt, in a recent online chat sponsored by New Hampshire's Concord Monitor newspaper and washingtonpost.com, said he supports the "right to possession of firearms by lawful citizens."

In a survey conducted by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, however, Gephardt bragged about his efforts to help pass the ban on so-called "assault weapons" in 1994 and the Brady Bill in 1993. Gephardt's gun-control advocacy earned him an F- rating from Gun Owners of America.

Lieberman voted for both of those bills as well. He has voted in line with the Brady Campaign 90 percent of the time in the last 12 years, the lowest percentage among the leading contenders in the race.

Despite his support for "law-abiding citizens to bear arms," Lieberman also wants handguns to be sold with safety locks, supports the ban on semiautomatic firearms and the idea of closing the "gun show loophole." He earned an F rating from Gun Owners of America.

With no voting record, the career military man, Clark, has a stance on firearms that is harder to judge. He is a collector of guns, but like the other candidates, supports the semiautomatic firearms ban and background checks.

"There is no contradiction between supporting gun rights and fighting for responsible gun laws," he told the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in its 2004 election questionnaire.

Americans for Gun Safety spokeswoman Deborah Barron said the Democrats hold similar positions on guns. Despite the disagreement between Dean and Kerry, she said they both support extending the semiautomatic firearms ban and they favor background checks.

"We don't believe there is any contradiction between strongly supporting the Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms as well as supporting laws that keep guns out of the hands of kids, criminals and terrorists," Barron said. "You're seeing Democratic candidates standing up and clarifying their support of the Second Amendment."

She also noted that President Bush has staked out similar positions to the candidates. Bush, however, favors legislation that would shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits, which the Democrats oppose.

Campaign strategies for the Democrats

Since receiving the NRA's top rating in 2000 as a gubernatorial candidate, Dean has taken a tougher stand against guns, while also promoting a states' rights position.

"If urban states want to have lots of gun control, let them have it, but just don't impose the same gun laws that you have in New York City or New Jersey or California on states like Vermont, which have a very low homicide rate," Dean said at the Sept. 9 debate in Detroit.

Dean's position hasn't won over gun-control activists like Sarah Brady, who has emerged as one of the candidate's biggest critics.

"Howard Dean has really stretched the boundaries of what we thought was a debate that was closed," Brady Campaign spokesman Rob Wilcox said. "He's talking about states' rights and that was an issue that was decided in the 1990s during the passage of the Brady Bill."

Wilcox said the Brady Campaign wouldn't support a candidate until after the Democrats pick their nominee. He said gun-control advocates are looking for someone who could balance "a hunter's right to hunt or an individual's right to protect their home with a firearm" with reasonable gun safety measures.

Despite Gore's losses in Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia, Wilcox said Gore advocated the right message in Pennsylvania and Michigan, two states that he won.

"If the message is articulated not in terms of a hunting issue or self-defense issue," Wilcox said, "but for background checks and reasonable restrictions on assault weapons, then I think it's overwhelmingly popular."

The NRA's Cox said the Second Amendment proved to be a crucial issue in the 2000 and 2002 elections, and he expects it will again be on the minds of Americans.

He warned Democrats that changing their stance on firearms could prove costly. He blamed Gore's losses on the Clinton administration's hostility toward the Second Amendment.

"You will continue to see our members engaged in this issue to the point where they are not going to believe the photo ops and they're not going to believe the political posturing by any candidate who is trying to run from their past," Cox said.

But Barron of Americans for Gun Safety said Democrats could capitalize on the issue as long as they articulated their views and respected the rights of gun owners.

"It's a strategic shift for the Democratic Party," she said. "Rather than conventional wisdom that guns cost Gore the election in 2000, what you're seeing is the Democratic candidates making a concerted effort to take back the Second Amendment and clarify their positions in the gun debate."

See Earlier Story:
Democrats Hope to Woo 'Bible-Quoting, Gun-Toting' Voters (Oct. 17, 2003)

E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dems Tout Second Amendment, but Voting RecordsShow Hostility" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Balog
November 17, 2003, 02:37 PM
"Revisionist history might work with politicians, but it certainly doesn't work with NRA members," said Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist. "Our membership is a very loyal and political savvy group of people who believe deeply in their freedoms and vote accordingly."


Mr. Pot, let me introduce you to Ms. Kettle.

Henry Bowman
November 17, 2003, 03:15 PM
At least the article mentions GOA, too. Not just NRA as the alpha and omega of the "gun issue."

Russ
November 17, 2003, 06:47 PM
As a former Californian, I will never vote for a Democrat. I don't care what they say, they all lie. Elect one locally and they end up in the House or Senate and they vote with the Brady bunch almost every time. The Dems ruined California and those anti gun laws once in place are virtually impossible to get repealed.

7.62FullMetalJacket
November 17, 2003, 07:27 PM
Don't sugar coat it Russ, tell us how you really feel.:banghead:

The democrats stand for several disgusting things. One is gun control. Anybody that thinks differently needs his/her head examined. Their motto is "Serving Gun Control since 1968."

In this instance, I am one issue voter: never vote for the socialist democrat party.

BTW Russ, I am glad you escaped. I immigrated to, and fled from, the PDRK. I am still bathing trying to wash off the feeling.

Skunkabilly
November 17, 2003, 07:32 PM
I'm pro 2nd Amendment...I hunt! :rolleyes:

greyhound
November 17, 2003, 08:11 PM
Self-defense is just not in their worldview."

Bingo!

I'm pro 2nd Amendment...I hunt!

And even that is a stretch....

Howard Dean has really stretched the boundaries of what we thought was a debate that was closed," Brady Campaign spokesman Rob Wilcox said.

Hey, w4rma, I'll give ya that one: if Dean is causing hissy fits at the Brady Campaign, good for him. (still not voting for him :D )

And, oh, Mr. Leftist Brady Campaign spokesmen: gee, we never knew the "debate was closed"......

"Democrats assume that if we see them with a gun in their hand, they must be pro-gun," Pratt said.

Actually, we (though I can't really speak for all of us) assume that they sure do look uncomfortable holding one of them eeevvillll guns!:evil:

7.62FullMetalJacket
November 17, 2003, 08:15 PM
I didn't know that this thread was infected with the Dean cheerleader yet:evil:

greyhound
November 17, 2003, 08:25 PM
Its a preemptive shot across the bow....

Can't help it, I went to see "Master and Commander" this weekend....:D

Standing Wolf
November 17, 2003, 08:40 PM
I'd sooner vote for a communist than a representative of the Democratic (sic) party: at least the communist is honest about his anti-American intentions.

7.62FullMetalJacket
November 17, 2003, 08:50 PM
Well said.

alan
November 19, 2003, 12:32 AM
Dems Tout Second Amendment, but Voting Records Show Hostility
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
November 17, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - A year before the 2004 presidential election, major Democratic candidates have moderated their rhetoric on firearms, trying not to alienate voters who own guns, while also carefully reassuring liberal voters of their continued support for gun control.

However, CNSNews.com's extensive review of the candidates' votes and statements on firearms policy shows that those with congressional experience have anything but a moderate voting record.

In the 2000 race, former Vice President Al Gore lost three battleground states - Arkansas, his home state of Tennessee and West Virginia, each by six or fewer percentage points - in part because he was unable to shed the anti-gun image he developed during the Democratic primary contest.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who has voted with gun-control proponents 100 percent of the time, views sportsmen as an important constituency. Just last month, with a shotgun in hand, Kerry had reporters follow him on a pheasant hunt in Iowa.

The current Democratic frontrunner, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has no congressional track record to explain. Instead, he has stressed his endorsements from the National Rifle Association, while serving as Vermont's governor, in a concerted attempt to reach out to pro-gun Democrats.

Even Dean appears to be trying to have it both ways with his campaign rhetoric, according to groups that defend the Second Amendment and rate politicians on the issue.

The other leading contenders, including retired Gen. Wesley Clark, U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, fit into a similar pattern, according to pro-gun groups.

The Democrats' rhetoric mirrors a strategy outlined last month by the Democratic Leadership Council and Americans for Gun Safety. The groups touted a survey that showed a Democrat who endorsed the Second Amendment and supported reasonable gun control would defeat a pro-gun Republican.

Gun-rights advocates aren't buying the strategy of these "camouflage candidates," as they are sometimes called.

"Revisionist history might work with politicians, but it certainly doesn't work with NRA members," said Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist. "Our membership is a very loyal and political savvy group of people who believe deeply in their freedoms and vote accordingly."

Cox told CNSNews.com the NRA wouldn't support candidates who lie about their stance on guns. He called it political double-talk.

Supporting the Second Amendment?

Even though gun control hasn't played as large a role thus far as it did when Gore and former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley squared off in 2000, Dean and Kerry recently engaged in a spat over the issue.

Kerry's pheasant hunt last month was aimed at bolstering his image among sportsmen. He has earned an F rating from Gun Owners of America and the NRA for his voting record. But Kerry also used the setting to attack Dean's stance on firearms.

"Howard Dean and I have huge difference[s] on guns and what's appropriate," Kerry said at the presidential debate in Boston earlier this month. "I don't want to be the candidate of the NRA in this country. I don't think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA."

Dean did receive an A rating from the NRA in 2000, but in the current presidential campaign, he has occasionally articulated gun-rights positions drastically at odds with those like the NRA and Gun Owners of America.

"I support the assault weapons ban," Dean said at the Boston debate. "I do not support the elimination of liability for gun owners. I support background checks. And I support background checks for people who buy guns at gun shows."

Switching positions or posing for photos is nothing new, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. He told CNSNews.com that former President Bill Clinton used the tactic along with other Democrats looking for the support of gun owners.

"Democrats assume that if we see them with a gun in their hand, they must be pro-gun," Pratt said. "Just because they went sport shooting doesn't tell us that they're pro-gun. That shows you what they don't understand about the issue. Self-defense is just not in their worldview."

The other candidates - Clark, Gephardt and Lieberman - haven't made as much noise about the Second Amendment as Dean and Kerry, but they generally fall in line with positions advocated by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Gephardt, in a recent online chat sponsored by New Hampshire's Concord Monitor newspaper and washingtonpost.com, said he supports the "right to possession of firearms by lawful citizens."

In a survey conducted by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, however, Gephardt bragged about his efforts to help pass the ban on so-called "assault weapons" in 1994 and the Brady Bill in 1993. Gephardt's gun-control advocacy earned him an F- rating from Gun Owners of America.

Lieberman voted for both of those bills as well. He has voted in line with the Brady Campaign 90 percent of the time in the last 12 years, the lowest percentage among the leading contenders in the race.

Despite his support for "law-abiding citizens to bear arms," Lieberman also wants handguns to be sold with safety locks, supports the ban on semiautomatic firearms and the idea of closing the "gun show loophole." He earned an F rating from Gun Owners of America.

With no voting record, the career military man, Clark, has a stance on firearms that is harder to judge. He is a collector of guns, but like the other candidates, supports the semiautomatic firearms ban and background checks.

"There is no contradiction between supporting gun rights and fighting for responsible gun laws," he told the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in its 2004 election questionnaire.

Americans for Gun Safety spokeswoman Deborah Barron said the Democrats hold similar positions on guns. Despite the disagreement between Dean and Kerry, she said they both support extending the semiautomatic firearms ban and they favor background checks.

"We don't believe there is any contradiction between strongly supporting the Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms as well as supporting laws that keep guns out of the hands of kids, criminals and terrorists," Barron said. "You're seeing Democratic candidates standing up and clarifying their support of the Second Amendment."

She also noted that President Bush has staked out similar positions to the candidates. Bush, however, favors legislation that would shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits, which the Democrats oppose.

Campaign strategies for the Democrats

Since receiving the NRA's top rating in 2000 as a gubernatorial candidate, Dean has taken a tougher stand against guns, while also promoting a states' rights position.

"If urban states want to have lots of gun control, let them have it, but just don't impose the same gun laws that you have in New York City or New Jersey or California on states like Vermont, which have a very low homicide rate," Dean said at the Sept. 9 debate in Detroit.

Dean's position hasn't won over gun-control activists like Sarah Brady, who has emerged as one of the candidate's biggest critics.

"Howard Dean has really stretched the boundaries of what we thought was a debate that was closed," Brady Campaign spokesman Rob Wilcox said. "He's talking about states' rights and that was an issue that was decided in the 1990s during the passage of the Brady Bill."

Wilcox said the Brady Campaign wouldn't support a candidate until after the Democrats pick their nominee. He said gun-control advocates are looking for someone who could balance "a hunter's right to hunt or an individual's right to protect their home with a firearm" with reasonable gun safety measures.

Despite Gore's losses in Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia, Wilcox said Gore advocated the right message in Pennsylvania and Michigan, two states that he won.

"If the message is articulated not in terms of a hunting issue or self-defense issue," Wilcox said, "but for background checks and reasonable restrictions on assault weapons, then I think it's overwhelmingly popular."

The NRA's Cox said the Second Amendment proved to be a crucial issue in the 2000 and 2002 elections, and he expects it will again be on the minds of Americans.

He warned Democrats that changing their stance on firearms could prove costly. He blamed Gore's losses on the Clinton administration's hostility toward the Second Amendment.

"You will continue to see our members engaged in this issue to the point where they are not going to believe the photo ops and they're not going to believe the political posturing by any candidate who is trying to run from their past," Cox said.

But Barron of Americans for Gun Safety said Democrats could capitalize on the issue as long as they articulated their views and respected the rights of gun owners.

"It's a strategic shift for the Democratic Party," she said. "Rather than conventional wisdom that guns cost Gore the election in 2000, what you're seeing is the Democratic candidates making a concerted effort to take back the Second Amendment and clarify their positions in the gun debate."

mrapathy2000
November 19, 2003, 04:53 AM
TRUST NO ONE!

NukemJim
November 19, 2003, 06:23 AM
Can we trust Republicans behind our backs??

NO ! Nor any other politician(s).

NukemJim

Don Galt
November 19, 2003, 08:16 AM
Where's the "behind our backs"? Bush is out in front of us in full display calling for renewal of the AWB.

Mark Tyson
November 19, 2003, 08:29 AM
Dean's position hasn't won over gun-control activists like Sarah Brady, who has emerged as one of the candidate's biggest critics.

So why does he still court them by embracing BS like the so-called "assault weapons" ban? Why doesn't he say, in the immortal words of Conan, "Then the hell with you!", and promise to oppose gun control and useless laws?

Dare to dream I guess...

Old Fuff
November 19, 2003, 08:48 AM
Trust the Republicans? No, not on an accross-the-party basis. Take Arizona for example. On one hand we have John McCain, our senior senator. He is as liberal as they come, and one's gun rights wouldn't be worth zip in his hands. Most of the time he votes with the Democrats, regardless of the issue.

Then we have Jon Kyle, our junior senator. Kyle is a conservative who not only votes pro-gun but sometimes co-sponsors gun-rights legislation. I'd trust him any day of the week.

And both men are Republicans .......

Generally speaking though, the liberal Democrats who control the party have a long record of being against firearms. The Republican Party has been better, although sometimes not by much.

If or when I get a chance to vote against McCain I will do so - hopefully in a primary rather then an election. I'd like to see him replaced by another Jon Kyle type of guy.

But regardless of what they are saying now, if the Democrats regain control of congress and the White House we will see a flood of "common sense, reasonable, sensible, close-the-loopholes laws - for the children of course. We will also see a bunch of new liberal anti-gun judges appointed to the federal bench.

So for that reason I will continue to usually support Republicans .....

But not always ................

foghornl
November 19, 2003, 08:56 AM
One word answer: NO ! ! !


My example...all we need is a photo of Senators DeWine, Voinovich, and Guv. Booby Taft. Then you would have the "poster kids" of R.I.N.O.

R-epublican
I-n
N-ame
O-nly

rick_reno
November 19, 2003, 09:14 AM
Absolutely - Yes - you can trust them. Just look back at the past 20 years of 2nd Amendment protection measures that were passed and you can thank the Republicans. They, unlike the evil Democrats are only interested in protecting your Rights, especially those Rights assoicated with the keeping and bearing of arms.;)

Sodbuster
November 19, 2003, 09:20 AM
Republicans are a great bunch of guys and gals whose sole interest is protecting our rights. Their middle name is Altruism. I can't say enough good things about them. I mean that. And the same applies to democrats.

BenW
November 19, 2003, 10:29 AM
...but like the other candidates, supports the semiautomatic firearms ban and background checks.
Hmm. Is this CNS News wording, or are some of these guys actually saying, "ban semiautos" versus "ban 'assault weapons'" in public?

TallPine
November 19, 2003, 11:08 AM
laws that keep guns out of the hands of kids, criminals and terrorists

Defintions:

kids - adults between the ages of 18 - 21

criminals - anyone who has ever had a ticket for anything

terrorists - absolutely anyone that we label as such; everyone


See, you just pass a "reasonable" law and then change the definitions.

Jack19
November 19, 2003, 11:19 AM
Never trust your politicians. At the very least, use the Reagan Doctrine of "Trust, but verify."

alan
November 19, 2003, 11:22 AM
Re the several responses to my post, I'm glad to see that some people have read the piece, and are thinking about what was said therein. Thank you all. So much for peole who read this site, it's discussions, and who offer their own thoughts, or post "interesting" materials.

If we could only figure out how in blazes to wake up the rest of the people, or at least that portion of "the people" who are gun owners. We then might get some really interesting responses, perhaps even some "interesting" action. Is that to much to expect, it might well be, which is a possibility or likelhood that saddens me deeply.

Life seems to be full of disappointments, along with the few nice surprises that sometimes come along. Which way will this cookie crumble, damned if I know, though one can of course hope.

moa
November 19, 2003, 03:07 PM
I think one indication of how much trust you can put into politicans is the recent US Senate voice vote on the $87 billion appropriation Iraqi rebuilding/war Bill. Of 100 Senators, only 6 showed up on the Senate floor for the voice vote. Five were Democrates and one was a Republican. Vote was 5 to 1 for the appropriation.

Even Bill Frist, the Republican Senate Majority Leader could not show up to support his President in this crucial vote.

Apparently very few Senators had the guts to actually be recorded vote-wise on a controversial, high profile Bill.

Can you imagine what it would be like on hot button, gun-control Bills. Maybe no one will show up in the Senate to cast their vote except the Bill's sponsors. And why not? Being a no-show Senator has no political consequences.

The House of Representatives appears to had a full membership vote on the Iraqi appropriation Bill.

alan
November 19, 2003, 03:52 PM
MOA:

Your interesting post included the following:

"Can you imagine what it would be like on hot button, gun-control Bills. Maybe no one will show up in the Senate to cast their vote except the Bill's sponsors. And why not? Being a no-show Senator has no political consequences".

One of these days, no, I don't know when, these overpaid clowns might find out, the hard way, that being a "no show" Senator has significant political consequences.

Of course, that ending will require Joe and Jane Six Pack to get off their asses, and do something, which might well be the equivalent of expecting Joe and Jane Gun Owner to contact their elected things, regarding issues that self interest, if nothing else should suffice to energize them over. Alas, they, all to often, seem content to simply sit there, doing nothing, other than crying, when that nasty thing that "snuk up on them",bites them on their lazy asses.

It's been raining all day, and my outlook gets darker in the rain.

labgrade
November 19, 2003, 04:24 PM
Quick read/skim & sorry for no content other than exposed ...

rick_reno
Absolutely - Yes - you can trust them. Just look back at the past 20 years of 2nd Amendment protection measures that were passed and you can thank the Republicans. They, unlike the evil Democrats are only interested in protecting your Rights, especially those Rights assoicated with the keeping and bearing of arms."

I may be in huge error here, ...

But, what from our current masters?

Ascroft's own words (paraphrased) "Yup, The Second is "secure" except for "reasonable restrictions." & that apt "phantoms of lost liberties ... "

Bush said he'd sign the AWB renewal.

A Repub Guv, state-level senate & house cause us to start the TRT.

Ergo. They attempted to poltically F-us! at the state level - to "head off a more serious threat." Want to bet that they could have "headed of that threat" by some sort of "0political action?"

Bastards!

We now have a constitutional amendment against "gun shows"... thanks to the "prohibitive actions" of ourt state-level GOP.

Thanks for nothing, A-holes!

Sorry, folks.

I don't see a single thing that says the GOP will defend any thing whatsoever.

Bunch-a pussies! & worse.

Standing Wolf
November 19, 2003, 09:37 PM
If someone would kindly tell me how to distinguish between the Republicrats and the Democans, I'll let you know which I distrust more. I can't tell them apart even with a score card.

Don Galt
November 20, 2003, 01:59 AM
Standing Wolf-- there's a difference. While both parties want higher taxes, more violations of the BoR and to ban guns, the republicans pretend to NOT want these thigns, while working for them.

Thus, whenever these things happen, they just blame the democrats! ITs a perfect system... well, as long as republican voters continue to ignore how their republican representatives actually vote.

Betty
November 20, 2003, 05:38 PM
Merging threads...

7.62FullMetalJacket
November 20, 2003, 08:30 PM
Don,

So by your logic, we should vote Democrat to set ourselves free:confused:

Don Galt
November 20, 2003, 10:47 PM
No, the democrats are no better.

Vote Libertarian, and set yourself free.:D

Frohickey
November 20, 2003, 11:22 PM
"We don't believe there is any contradiction between strongly supporting the Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms as well as supporting laws that keep guns out of the hands of kids, criminals and terrorists," Barron said. "You're seeing Democratic candidates standing up and clarifying their support of the Second Amendment."


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Barron is wrong. What you are really seeing are Democratic candidates weaseling out and trying to justify their infringement of the Second Amendment.


On the issue of missing votes, a Constitutional amendment saying that a Senator and Congresscritter is paid a percentage of the votes that they cast would be good.

alan
November 20, 2003, 11:37 PM
Frohickey offered the following:


"On the issue of missing votes, a Constitutional amendment saying that a Senator and Congresscritter is paid a percentage of the votes that they cast would be good".

Excellent idea. You realize, of course, that it would never go anywhere.

Another "good idea" that went nowhere was as follows. Many years ago, as the story goes, some young congress critter offered what seemingly was viewed as a truly outrageous suggestion, re staffing levels at The Bureau of Indian Affairs. I suppose that his idea would have been applicable to other agencies too.

He proposed that under no circumstances would the number of government employees at said bureau be allowed to exceed the number of Indians whose affairs it was overseeing or looking after.

The suggestion was withdrawn, after having been shouted down.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dems Tout Second Amendment, but Voting RecordsShow Hostility" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!