So, no difference between the Democrats and Republicans?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Monkeyleg

Member.
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
5,057
Location
Decatur, AL
For the past seven years there have been uncountable numbers of posts saying that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to gun issues.

Now, with the Democrats having been in power for just a few weeks, the L&P forum reads like a laundry list of anti-gun bills.

The Democrats never changed their stripes. They just painted over them for the elections.
 
The Democrats never changed their stripes. They just painted over them for the elections.
How many of them have been introduced by 'pro-gun' (say, NRA B- or better, or ran on a pro-gun platform) Democrats? How many have been co-sponsored or endorsed by same?

How many similar or identical bills have been introduced in prior sessions without discussion or reference?
 
The main difference is that Republicans don't introduce new Anti gun Legislation. Dems do... this is why, you cannot vote Dem in any way, ever..no matter how good you think they might be.. Dem leadership is always looking to take these rights away....and the Dem leadership is the one in charge, not the local Dem rep you think is great... Thanks to all THR folks who voted DEM in the last election, we will have to fight more stupidity...
 
"How many of them have been introduced by 'pro-gun' (say, NRA B- or better, or ran on a pro-gun platform) Democrats? How many have been co-sponsored or endorsed by same?"

Doesn't matter. Those Dem's aren't in leadership.

If the AW ban gets to the floor, leadership will be all over those pro-gun Dem's to vote for the bill.
 
CDignition is right. I remember lurking here before the election and hearing how many people said they were going to "send a message" to the GOP by voting thrid party, "none of the above"(not voting), or even voting Dem.

Thanks for AWBII guys.

The GOP may be greedy. They may be self-serving. They may be corrupt. They may vote YES on anti-gun lesislation just to look good.

But they don't actively go out and create anti-gun legislation. Only the Dems sink that low.
 
H.R. 96: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007

To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms, and for other purposes.

Introduced: Jan 4, 2007
Sponsor:
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]show cosponsors (3)
Cosponsors
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.
Last Action: Jan 4, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Full Text: View Full Text of Bill
 
If the Republicans would actually DO something smart they would not have lost the election.

Instead you get industiral strength stupidity.

You can thank Bill Frist and his idiotic anti-gaming bill for pissing off millions of voters two weeks before the election.

So thanks Rs for AWBII.

The Dems say little but do a lot, the Reps say a lot but do little.

If the Rs were actually interested in the "little guy" we would see massive reductions in regulations and taxes that crush small business, we would see massive reductions in overall taxes which would allow more wealth building for EVERYONE. Also the Rs would never stop pushing for the little guy to be able to defend himself.

On all these above issues the Rs talk and talk and talk and talk but little ever comes out of it. In fact, instead of more freedom they get less. People have finally noticed and are hopping off the R train.

The Dems serve their voters well, what do the Rs offer to their own base?
 
Doesn't matter. Those Dem's aren't in leadership.

So pro-gun Democrats aren't behind or supporting any of this?

Then why did you say "The Democrats never changed their stripes. They just painted over them for the elections"? (ie what I quoted and responded to)

Who, exactly, claimed to be pro-gun and lied about it?
 
Hmm

Well you did ask for it

Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

by Richard Poe


NEWSMAX.COM - Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.

Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.

A Gallup/CNN/USA Today survey taken in June 1999 – only two months after the Littleton massacre – showed that the number of Americans who favored stricter gun laws had declined by 20 percent since 1990.

Public support for gun control has dwindled even further since then. An Associated Press poll released on the one-year anniversary of the Littleton shootings shows that Americans favor strict enforcement of existing laws over new gun laws – the exact position of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – by 42 to 33 percent.

That same month, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 6 percent of Americans believed that tougher gun laws would prevent future school shootings.

Meanwhile, a Tarrance Group poll has shown that only 5 percent of Americans want gunmakers and gun dealers held responsible for misuse of firearms.

Clearly, the pressure for gun control is not coming from the grassroots. It comes from those layers of society that the left calls the "ruling classes" – academics, Hollywood stars, Washington insiders and multibillion-dollar media conglomerates.

The latter are particularly influential in pushing anti-gun propaganda. A study by the Media Research Center released in January 2000 showed that television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered those opposing such laws by a ratio of 10 to 1.

The blame for this media bias is traditionally assigned to "liberal journalists." And, indeed, most journalists do hold left-of-center views. A 1996 survey of working journalists by the Roper Center and the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only 4 percent identified themselves as Republicans and only 2 percent as conservatives.

Yet, their "liberal" views probably have less impact on the media’s anti-gun bias than most people assume. Rank-and-file reporters have little power to influence the political spin even of their own stories.

When I worked at the New York Post in the mid-1980s, I found the newsroom filled with liberals. They grumbled constantly about the paper’s conservative slant. But they went along with it, because it was company policy.

Liberal news organizations are no different. Political bias comes from the top. Rank-and-file reporters simply do what they are told.

Those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights are keeping our fingers crossed about George W. Bush. But the monolithic commitment America’s "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current.
 
Now, with the Democrats having been in power for just a few weeks, the L&P forum reads like a laundry list of anti-gun bills.

The same bills we have seen introduced so far this year have been introduced in previous years also. It is nothing new, and I do not believe those bills will leave committee.

The main difference is that Republicans don't introduce new Anti gun Legislation. Dems do...

The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 was sponsored by a Republican, and co-sponsored by two other Republicans. Now, are you unaware of this? Or deliberately making false statements?
 
From what I see, Dems are largly anti-gun and Republicans are neutral overall. There are a few pro-gun Dems who manage to get elected and there are plenty of anti-gun Repubs who would limit guns if they thought they would get away with it.

While you could say that most Repubs are not anti-gun, you can't really say they are pro-gun either. In reality, you really just have to look at the real record of the individual candidate. Sometimes you have to just vote for the least anti-gun.
 
I'm getting kinda tired of this lecture. At the time of the last election in Ohio, all the key Republicans were just as anti-gun as their opponents, if not more so, AND they were totally incompetent, crooked, buffoons as well. Thanks for the lectures and such, but I'll choose who I vote for locally.
National elections are another story...but I won't be voting for any anti-gun limousine-liberal RINOs, simply because someone tells me about the great support that Republicans give us. As Titan6 so clearly pointed out, no one party has a monopoly on gun banning -you HAVE to vote for the individual person and what they stand for- and you have to hold them to it, or dump them like a hot Zumbo.
 
donkey butts or elephants butts, out of both comes the same thing. What they say always ends up subservient to what they want--to continue in power.:eek:
 
For the past seven years there have been uncountable numbers of posts saying that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to gun issues.

Now, with the Democrats having been in power for just a few weeks, the L&P forum reads like a laundry list of anti-gun bills.

The Democrats never changed their stripes. They just painted over them for the elections.

Dems can put up all the anti gun bills they want......they need GOP votes to make them law. Pretty sure EVERY GUN LAW right now (that was a Democrat bill starting out) had GOP VOTES to make it LAW!!

Until somebody on this board shows me proof that NO Republican ever voted for the 34,68,86,94 gun laws.......I will never believe the myth that the GOP is "pro-gun"

(please tell me how the two parties are different....somebody please read me the GOP platform......with a straight face on the Limited Govt part)
 
Republicans: Want to control who you sleep with, don't care how you spend your money.

Oh come on now... the Republicans certainly want to control how you spend your money.

For example, Bush and Giuliani don't want you spending money on assault rifles, as they both advocate a ban on them.

McCain doesn't want you to spend money on the campaigns of non-incumbent politicians, as he proposed the Campaign finance reform bill.

Bush also wants you to spend more of your money on public welfare, as evidenced by the Medicare Reform bill.

The Republicans want you to continue to buy middle-eastern oil, as evidenced by the lack of a coherent energy policy.
 
Since 1999 at least the Republican congress and senate have put forward nearly a dozen new antigun laws and the ATF have banned a bunch of stuff from being imported into the US. Just because people don't bother checking on it doesn't mean it doesn't get added. It just gets put into other legislation and passes that way. Trent Lott is quite famous for doing it that way in particular.
 
For the past seven years there have been uncountable numbers of posts saying that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to gun issues.
No, we said that being Republican is no garauntee that they are pro-gun. Not the same thing at all. The point is that Republicans are not The Only Defenders Of Firearms Freedom, and are in fact often hunting down our rights. That is not the same as saying there is no difference between Dems and Reps.

But would you rather have Bill Richardson or Rudy Guiliani in the white house? From a RKBA perspective, the Democrat has a good record, and the Republican has a rotten record.
 
My dog's better than your dog,

My dog's better than yours.

My dog's better

Cuz he eats Ken l ration.

My dog's better that yours!





They are still both DOGS.;)
 
The GOP may be greedy. They may be self-serving. They may be corrupt. They may vote YES on anti-gun lesislation just to look good.

That's the argument for voting R? Thanks, but I'll stick with those whacky, third party, small government canidates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top