After watching Dem CNN debate, I don't think our "babies " are safe with any of them.

[lamazza]

Gee maybe if the GOP was truely Pro-Gun, some American voters would not be looking at the dems

See signature!
I'm getting kind of tired of people saying that RP can't win...well I think that if all those naysayers would vote for him we could get close. Others argue that its taking votes away from other candidates that have a chance..well which one? I see no difference from gun grabbing Dems and gun grabbing Repubs. Name a Dem that is more liberal or anti gun than Giuliani or McCain..
For once we have a chance to vote for someone that is not the lesser of 2 evils and who is PRO GUN and PRO FREEDOM.
Perhaps I am being naive or maybe I'm tired of compromise. Now more than ever we need to stand by our principles and values.

 

[ssr]

Instead, when “baby” turned out to be an evil black rifle they cut loose a broadside and exposed their true feelings – which is that ordinary people (like us) should not be allowed to legally posses any firearm that has any linkage to, or appearance of, a military or police weapon,

Agree. I think the question was very good and packed with lots of stuff that went over the heads of most people.

He exposed not only the dems, but also alot of gun owners who also are not solidly pro-gun, and are too worried about appearances and what the anti-crowd thinks.

He got up there on national TV and stood up for our rights to own guns, including those evil black rifles that no-one wants to stand up for publicly. He looked like a "normal" guy, and then pulled out the rifle instead of a "baby". It was a PLAY ON WORDS people, used to have an effect and surprisingly show his true stance.

He got their true stance out, at least Biden's. And that is a good thing that he accomplished. What the heck else have any of the complainers done? Other than worry about what Sara Brady is going to think and say?

 

[Atticus]

And the Booshes have supported gun owners how?

 

[Andrewsky]

1. Bush has signed a few pro-gun bills, such as HR218 and the disaster relief confiscation one.

2. Richardson is not stupid. The idea is that when you're a Democrat and you're running in the primary, you act like the biggest liberal you can so that you have a chance. Of course he's going to avoid the question. If he answers that he thinks gun control is bs for law-abiding folk, he'd have no chance of winning among the demon-rats.

3. Is Freddy in the race?

 

[xd9fan]

See signature!

dude I'm with ya!

 

[gopguy]

Anonymous Coward asks

Where am I supposed to disagree? What rights of mine is Biden attacking?

Joe "banning guns is an idea whose time has come"Biden has a track record. Anyone who has been watching the man for the 20 years like I have, will know he is telling us exactly what pretext he will use to get our guns. Note the man is asking if his "babies" his guns, will be safe. Biden is bringing up if he is mentally stable. Will a Biden Presidency mean he will demand by executive order that all gun owners submit to some sort of mental evaluation to keep our guns? I think he just told us he might well be looking for such a thing if he wins. What criteria will that be? Will the desire to own a military style firearm automatically make you mentally suspect?

The man gives me the creeps, with good reason.

For those still defending Richardson, friends, if that is how he answers the question then it is clear his support for the Second Amendment is a mile wide and an inch deep. Richardson can be quite articulate, but he blew it. He stood before a blue audience. He could have made the case for defending the Second Amendment and tried to explain how that right pertains to them as well so they can defend themselves and thier families...instead he carries on about the NICS check...Not the man I want defending my rights or leading my country if that is all the faster he can think on his feet.

 

[gopguy]

Atticus asked

And the Booshes have supported gun owners how?

Well along with what Andrewsky pointed out the President signed the bill that protected the gun industry from frivilous law suits. "Lawful commerce in Arms Act. He did not encourage congress to renew the Clinton-Democrat 1994 semiauto ban. Thus it expired and we can again get proper capacity magazines for our firearms. I must say any pol who does not trust you with a 15 shot magazine is someone who fears the people. That is someone I fear with power, because you have to wonder what plans they have, that they fear an armed population. Think about that...


He also sent John Bolton to the UN where John Bolton single handed killed the UN Small Arms conference that threated our Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately John Bolton is no longer there. You can thank Chuck Schumer and idiot RINOs George Voinovich and the now unemployed Lincoln Chafee for their roles in that...

 

[the pistolero]

You couldn't have thrown Biden a softer pitch.

Or, for that matter, given the allegedly pro-Second Amendment candidates a better chance to play up their strengths vis-a-vis the RKBA. Biden made it so much easier with his snide remarks, too. You couldn't have bought a better setup than that. Richardson fumbled the ball, and he fumbled it badly.

Where am I supposed to disagree?

How about with the implication that everyone who wants to own a gun should undergo a psychiatric evaluation? Seems to me that's another thing Biden was getting at.


ETA: Oh, and one more thing --

The NRA endorsed him in his re-election campaign in New Mexico.

It would seem, though, that an NRA endorsement is not exactly a rock-solid indicator of where one stands on the natural right to arms.

 

[gopguy]

Or, for that matter, given the allegedly pro-Second Amendment candidates a better chance to play up their strengths vis-a-vis the RKBA. Biden made it so much easier with his snide remarks, too. You couldn't have bought a better setup than that. Richardson fumbled the ball, and he fumbled it badly.

Which is the point I am trying to make about Richardson. Either he can't articulate his supposed pro Second Amendment stance, or in a crowd of liberals he is unwilling to be bold and make the case. Timid folks are not the stuff Presidents are made of.

Our best hope lies with the Republicans.

 

[ConfuseUs]

Yeah, Richardson's nonexistent response to Biden freely slandering someone on national TV is a big disappointment. And the reaction of the peanut gallery is enough to ensure that I will not be voting for ANY Dem for ANY office in '08.

OTOH, the GOP has an issue with a lot of solid popular support that experience has shown Democrats have utterly no credibility on and far too many of their candidates are just throwing it away. So I may not be voting Republican for POTUS in '08 either, since guns, taxes, and spending are why I vote Republican.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Andrewsky:
Bush has signed a few pro-gun bills, such as HR218 and the disaster relief confiscation one.

HR 218 is not a pro-gun bill but a pro-government and pro-big brother bill.

As for the lawful protections I feel it goes to far in protecting the gun industry. They should not be immune to lawsuits, I am sorry but there should not be any blanket protections.

 

[gopguy]

As for the lawful protections I feel it goes to far in protecting the gun industry. They should not be immune to lawsuits, I am sorry but there should not be any blanket protections.
__________________

I am sorry but the legal system is broken and abused in this country.


Frivilous lawsuits killed several gun companies in the past decade. In fact that was a goal of the anti gun community to use trial lawyers to bleed the gun companies to death with junk lawsuits. They admited it in fund raising mailings they did.

Only in this country can you sue a company for making a product that does exactly what it was designed to do...that is nuts.

We badly need to reign in the renegade trial lawyers in this country. One restaurant chain my wife and I enjoyed eating at was killed by a ridiculous lawsuit a couple of years ago. As Chi Chi's went under so have many other great companies in this country. Rather than fight the suit they closed down all of their stores. The DC judge suing over a pair of pants (for 54 million dollars) is another example of something that should have been laughed out of the courts...yet that drags on.

I fully support the protections in the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Among other things it protects against frivilous suits where if someone is shot with a gun by a criminal then that person or his family can not go suing the maker of the gun or several gun makers (as has happened) because they don't know who made the gun. It does not protect for actual junk guns that malfunction or break hurting the owner.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Why are we even debating this?

Richardson made his play, it was to assure Democratic voters that he isn't all that pro-gun. He's playing to the Union vote, which he needs to count on for traction.

As for Biden, he's a lib moonbat. He will appeal to lib moonbats.

That guy having his say was one of the best things that could have happened to us. CNN (and most of the MSM for that matter) think they can manipulate American politics because they believe their own propaganda.

The AR-15 is mainstream. Alot of things have led to this, including the fact that ARs are affordable to most gunowners now due to their widespread manufacture. CNN doesn't know that and soft pitched a ball that was hit out of the park for most of the Democratic Base. But, for those of us in Gunland, well, it gives pause to quite a few gunowners that were considering a Democrat because of the war, spending, etc.

The primaries are about solidifying a Base. The question asked helped to solidify the Democratic Base.

However, as such things often do, it hurt them in the eyes of gun owners who want the war to be over, and the spending to be more responsible. That is a good thing.

 

[Old Fuff]

Tecumseh:

As for the lawful protections I feel it goes to far in protecting the gun industry. They should not be immune to lawsuits, I am sorry but there should not be any blanket protections.

Sorry, but you and many others are victims of mainstream media and anti-gun lies. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is specific in that it doesn't protect any firearms manufacturer from lawsuits centered on real injury (the legal term for damage), such as a defective firearm blowing up in someones face, or an accidental shooting caused by a poorly designed safety. What it does do is prevent the anti-gun crowd from filing suits against gunmakers for such nebulous reasons as a claim that they over produce guns to supply the criminal market.

Or for example, Smith & Wesson was sued in Chicago when a police officer was killed with a revolver made by that company. The suit claimed that S&W was responsible for the criminal getting the gun. The truth was that S&W had sold the revolver to a police department many years before. Later they traded the guns in to someone else on a trade for new sidearms. That company sold the surplus revolvers to FFL dealers that legally sold them to consumers. However in this case the revolver was stolen from the legal owner, and passed eventually to the criminal who shot the officer. Obviously Smith & Wesson had no control over the gun after they sold it to the police department, but they were sued anyway, and had to pay out big bucks to defend themselves is court - and one in Chicago to boot.

This is the sort of thing the The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will stop.

 

[gopguy]

Why are we even debating this?

Because as you can see by responses here, many still see Richardson as the savior of the Second Amendment on the left and are willing to support him despite his tepid incoherant response.

Primaries are about solidifying your base, but you should not lie or obfuscate in the process to win votes...That has become so much the norm it makes me ill. The man should have boldly stated where he stood. If he thought he did with that answer then I think the liberals on this board who plan to support him need to let him know the response was pathetic.

As for Biden, he's a lib moonbat. He will appeal to lib moonbats.

Biden is a moon bat indeed...but in my view all of the lefty field are moonbats.




My point is anyone who thinks anybody standing on that stage in that debate is going to protect their Second Amendment rights needs some serious couch time.

 

[SWMAN]

Why do any of you expect high standards of any kind from Biden? He plagarized his way through Syracuse Law School. He has no integrity and is a minor player in the Dem nomination process.

Watch out for Clinton and Obama. Combined with a Dem Congress, they will be dangerous to 2A rights. The most likely way to ensure our 2A rights are preserved, I'm assuming a Dem Presidential victory in 2008, is to ensure that pro2A congressman, both Dem and GOP, are elected to check the radicalism of the anti2A folks.

 

[Autolycus]

Why can't the gun manufacturers just counter-sue for costs of going to trial?

 

[SpeedAKL]

Richardson doesn't seem to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. He doesn't bend left enough on many of the issues to get the funding from the angry fringe that's driving the party right now. The Hollywood and media types are all ate up with Clinton and Obama, and most of the base are going along with them. Edwards is someone to watch out for as well.

Frankly, I don't trust any major Democratic candidates with guns.

 

[Old Fuff]

Tecumseh:

Why can't the gun manufacturers just counter-sue for costs of going to trial?

In theory they might, but in practice the Petitioner (the person who brings the suit in the first place) is someone that's poor and while the gun companies might get a judgment, they'd be unlikely to get anything - after spending an additional tens of thousands of dollars in court trying.

The cases that brought on the The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in the first place were thirty-some city governments (usually but not always controled by Democrats) and two or three state attorney generals in anti-gun states.

They sued ALL of the handgun companies, regardless of who they were, claiming that they (the companies) were responsible for the cost of "gun violence" because they were the ones that made the guns that criminals used. The idea, largely dreamed up in the Clinton White House, was to hit the companies with so many suits at once that they'd have to settle out-of-court on anti-guner terms, or go bankrupt paying legal costs. They almost succeeded. As it was, the only one that caved in was Smith & Wesson - who at that time was owned by a British company. The present owners had nothing too do with this. In time the suits were dismissed by various courts, but not before it cost the companies millions of dollars in legal costs.

Have you ever tried to sue the government??? Thought not. They can use tax money to keep the case in this or that court until you go broke. :banghead:

 

[gopguy]

Bill Richardson's slide left continues. On July 27th the Albuquerque Journal
reports that Richardson says he wants to close a loophole that allows some gun buyers to walk out of gun shows without a criminal background check. The end of private gun sales....I can hear his NRA rating falling fast...Along with Dem hopes for a pro gun Dem candidate.