Dems recast Gun Control image

Status
Not open for further replies.
I watched the House hearings on the Waco investigation,
the VHS version of Waco: Rules of Engagement and the
unedited version of W:ROE on cable. Given the
performance of the Charlie Schumer cult in justifying
a military assault on a religous commune over possession
of guns (none of the other excuses were BATF jurisdiction),
it will take more than a few window dressing PR pieces
to convince me the Democratic Party has undergone a
sea-change over gun control.

Since Carl Bakal's "This Very Day A Gun May Kill You" in
the July 1959 Harper's magazine, I have followed what
left-liberal-Democrat sources in New York and other
liberal strongholds have said about guns, gun owners and
the NRA for nearly fifty years: there is a mountain of
evidence from their own sources what they think of us.

New York city cops shot a man reaching for his wallet to
show ID: somehow it was his fault or Charlton Heston's.
To be a blue-state Democrat you must hate-hate-hate guns.
One press release will not convince me that now they are
friends.
 
But Hamm also acknowledged that gun control supporters have done a poor job framing their arguments in ways that do not make lawful hunters fear their lifestyle is under attack, Hamm said.

Darn them! They just refuse to believe our lies. We'll have to come up with more convincing lies.
 
Gun show loophole

Licensed dealers at gun shows must do the background check. Period.

Private individuals buying, selling and trading personal guns do not qualify
as dealers and cannot get licenses that empower them to do background
checks.

In fact, one of the accomplishments of the Brady Bunch/Clinton
Administration was to pull over 80,000 Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs)
from people who had FFLs mainly to buy, sell and trade as a hobby.

ATF allows private individuals to buy, sell, trade fireams without a FFL
as long as they "are not engaged in the business of dealing in firearms"
which means personal transactions at gunshows are within the law.

To get a conviction for unlicensed dealing, ATF only has to demonstrate
that you sold a gun: the assurance is they will only prosecute you if
you are known on the street as a source of crime guns, but all they have
to prove in court is you sold one gun even if you lost money.

The "gunshow loophole" is legal private sales between individual hobbyists.

Back in the good old days, there were NO FFL gun dealers at gun shows,
just hobbyists and gun collectors.
 
From the article:

''As a party, our lack of understanding of gun sports is hurting us," said Hackett, a former Marine who owns about 20 guns.



Oh my gawsh, a democratic congressman from Ohio owns an arsenal. That can never stand, can it? What does he need all of those guns for? He must be planning on using them for crime, because no one needs that many guns for hunting or target shooting, which is the reason we have a second amendment in the first place. There is clearly no need for that many guns to go hunting or target shooting. Sarah and her Brady Bunch must be informed of this right away. Cripes, Ohio isn't even a western or southern state.
 
From the article:

''As a party, our lack of understanding of gun sports is hurting us," said Hackett, a former Marine who owns about 20 guns.



Oh my gawsh, a democratic congressman from Ohio owns an arsenal. That can never stand, can it? What does he need all of those guns for? He must be planning on using them for crime, because no one needs that many guns for hunting or target shooting, which is the reason we have a second amendment in the first place. There is clearly no need for that many guns to go hunting or target shooting. Sarah and her Brady Bunch must be informed of this right away. Cripes, Ohio isn't even a western or southern state.

The sky is falling, someone run and tell the king. :eek:
 
Guys, Bush said he'd sign an AWB extension if it made it to his desk.

And he knew it'd never make it to his desk. And I'm sure that he made SURE it'd never make it. Fine.

Now, let's do some numbers.

Say that you've got a population that's 50/50 on something. You need a majority to win.

Now, you can try persuading folks from the other side to come over, but that's really hard... But it works very well - If you gain 1% the tide goes to 51/49....

HOWEVER, if you just keep 1% of the other side's loyalists from voting, you've got 50/49/1, and you've got your majority again.

THINK.
 
The Democrats become gun grabbers when they head to Washington.

If it wasn't for the downstate Democrats in the state legislature here in Illinois, Illinois would rival California for restrictions on firearms.

You can't always count republicans as your friends. It is the republicans in the collar counties around Chicago that keep us from turning back the tide of gun control here.

Jeff
 
Justin said:
I'll start to believe the Democrats have had a change of heart on gun control just as soon as I see Howard Dean calling for a repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Isn't HD one of the highest ranked Dems by the NRA's standards? He is, after all, from VT.
 
This same discussion is going on the DU board right now. As I mentioned over there, John Kerry awkwardly cradling a shotgun and talking about respecting hunters' rights hurts Dems more than it helps, because it demonstrates how out of touch the leadership is on the gun issue. 80 percent of gun owners aren't hunters, they're just average citizens believing in the right to protect themselves.

I do agree that the NRA seems to have lost focus on the CCW issue. While defeating the AWB is important, at least here in MD they've made no bones about not seeing the CCW issue as all that crucial right now--and I was at a meeting with NRA lobbyists last week.

I posted some info on the fact that the Dems are finally starting to realize what a loser gun control is over here. You might enjoy it.
 
Sorry to break it to you Silver, but the NRA stoped crring about RKBA a long time ago. Nowa-days they are more interested in how much money they can squeeze out of their members.

This is why i cant join most of the ranges in our area. They usualy require members to join the NRA. I WONT have my money squandered by a bunch of corporate executives.

Do a little research into how the NRA spends their members money.

I'd start that research by checking who filed the lawsuit that stopped the Gov't from confiscating firearms after Katrina.

Then, I'd see who filed a lawsuit against San Fransisco after San Fran voted to ban all handguns inside the city limits.

That's just the last few months. A little research and you'll find ore.

LawDog
 
hillbilly said:
Lone_Gunman wrote:

"I am glad to see the Democrats have adopted this policy.

Its the same as President Bush isn't it?"


Yes, Lone_Guman, you are 100% correct.

The Dems and Dubya Bush agree completely and totally.

That is, of course, why you saw Bush push so hard in Congress to keep the AWB from sunsetting.

That is why Duby has spent the last year railing against the sunset of the AWB, and yelling at Congress to push another version of the AWB back through.

That's why Dubya has been threatening to veto every single bit of legislation that makes it to his desk that doesn't have the AWB attached to it as a rider.

Yes, Lone-Gunman, you are 100%. Dubya Bush is a hardcore proponent of the AWB.....which is exactly why the thing sunset a year ago, and nary a peep about it has come from the White House since.

:rolleyes:

hillbilly

Actually Hillbilly during one of his debates with Kerry, GW was asked about the AWB and his answer was "When Congress sends me a bill I'll sign it" If the GOP really cared about the RKBA they would pass a bill that makes it impossible to have another ban.
 
The Democrats in general are only trying to put on a different set of clothes, but inside, the more powerful Democrats (leaders) support stengthening gun control laws. Some would want to total ban on ownership of all firearms. You can cover up body odor with perfumes, but you still STINK when you get up close.

Good one 22rf!

"Dems recast Gun Control image" -- So what we have here is a wolf in sheep's clothing putting on a sheepdog costume.
 
So, does this mean the NRA is giving money to Democrats who support stricter gun laws in urban areas? If so, I'm glad I'm not a life member.
 
Justin said:
I'll start to believe the Democrats have had a change of heart on gun control just as soon as I see Howard Dean calling for a repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Youre 100% right, but this goes for the supposedly pro-gun republicans as well.

Let me know when a Ron Paul bill gets cosponsors. Until then, I know the republican party is coasting on the hatred gun owners have for the grabbers rather than actually trying to take a pricipled stance.
 
Originally Posted by Justin
I'll start to believe the Democrats have had a change of heart on gun control just as soon as I see Howard Dean calling for a repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
How many Repugs are calling for a repeal of GCA 68?

My Dem Congressman has a 100% NRA rating last time I checked, but I doubt even he is on record for a repeal.
 
Ignore the NRA ratings for the most part, or at least compare them to the GOA ratings for a sanity check. The NRA tends to rate the candidate it prefers an A and rate the unfavored candidate a D or an F to make picking easier. Often the A's are not really that pro gun and the Ds and Fs are not actually much worse.

If they were honest about the ratings, a lot of such races would probably be a B- vs a C+. A lot of the impetus behind the formation of the GOA was that people were sick of political games coming from the NRA leadership.

The upside to this borderline dishonesty is that it helps voters to show up at the polls and vote for the right candidate every time, which is the real source of the NRA's power. The NRA has never been a stickler for ideological purity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top