Travis Pahl wrote, in part: > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:59:19 -0800, Lowell C. Savage > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Travis Pahl wrote, in part: > > > Most all > > > the gun control laws were passed with republican support as well. > > > > Travis, this is NUTS!!! > > No. It is just the facts. tons of gun control legislation was passed > either by a republican controlled legislature or signed by a > republican executive
Please name a few. > > > A few lousy Rs vote for something and you lump the whole party in with > the > > majority of Ds to imply that they are the same. > > It is not a few in many cases. And in fact most all of them will tell > you they support all the laws on the books. > > > Then, you probably wonder > > why no one takes anything you say seriously. > > Nope. I did not wonder that, nor did I even consider that you do not > take me seriously. > > > Here are the links: > > > > How about you look at this one first... > > http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm > > > AW Ban 1994: > > House: Yeas: 46 R, 118 D; Nays: 131 R, 64 D. > > http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml > > So over 25% of the republicans supported a horrible gun law. Had they > not, it would not have passed. Yes. And so you want to ignore the almost 75% of Repbulicans who opposed it. > lets not forget the Crime control act of 1990. It bans manufacturing > and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S.and creates > 'gun free zones' in the US. > > http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1990/roll534.xml > > House: Yeas: 135 R 178 D, nays: 1 R 0 D > Senate: passed unanimously > > Signed into law by Republican George Bush. And did Bush get reelected? Did he get NRA support? Do you think a few Republicans learned something from it? > > You want something more recent? How about this? > > Sure, how about George Bushs support for the renewal of the assualt > weapon ban last year? Did it pass? Did he put any pressure on the House to pass it? Look. If you want to nitpick, you'll never find a politician you can support. Bush said during the campaign that he'd sign the bill if it got to his desk. Any blooming idiot that was conscious should have known from about Sept. 2000 on that you stopped the renewal in the House. So, since Bush paid lip service to renewing the AW Ban, you want to toss him overboard even though he supported (and put some weight behind) getting the gun manufacturer liability bill passed WITHOUT THE AW BAN! > Or how about the republican congress's doing absolutely nothing to > elliminate any of the laws on the books. Hmmm. Like passing the Armed Pilots thing? Like passing the concealed weapons for cops? Like TRYING to get the gun manufacturer liability bill? Like the 1995 House passing a repeal of the AW Ban? > > Who publicly pushed for Craig's original bill? President Bush--who came > out > > and said he wanted a "clean bill" because the AW Ban was going to go > nowhere > > in the House. Who voted against it? John Kerry, who on March 2, cast > his > > first votes in the Senate for the year 2004 to vote for the killer > > amendments and against the passage of the law. > > I never claimed the democrats were good on gun control. I tire of > them being brought up when there is no dispute about them. The issue > is the republicans. Are they good on gun control or not. It is > pointless to do a comparison with someone we know is bad. What is > important is are they good or not. do they support what we support? > That is the question I am interested in. OK. Let's compare them to the LP. How many laws have LP politicians gotten off the books? Oh, that's not fair! OK, how come when I get the candidate surveys from the GOA (and I got on the list a long time ago, so I get them for every state) 1/3 to half the libertarians either don't return their surveys from the GOA or refuse to answer or answer worse than Rs and Ds in their district!??? > > Nobody's saying that Republicans are "perfectly good" or that Democrats > are > > "perfectly bad", but the tendency should be pretty obvious. The > Republican > > party is generally pro-gun with a few dissenters and wafflers and the > > Democrat party is generally anti-gun with a few dissenters and wafflers. > > The point I am making is that it is not so clear cut as you make it > out to be. In fact more republicans support most all the gun control > we have on the books. If you step back and look at this from a wider > perspective, where you see the ideal (one gun law) and the opposite > (total gun ban), and plot the democrats and republicans, there is very > little difference. Now if you plot it looking only a very small > portion of the big picture (for example a range from todays gun > legislation minus a few laws and plus a few laws, then you might > notice a slight tendency torwards republicans, but still the tendency > would be that they fall on the side of more legislation. Right. And that's where the incrementalism comes in. Fifteen years ago, you barely ran out of fingers counting the number of states with Right-to-Carry laws. Now, if you count states without any sort of concealed carry law, you only run out of fingers--on one hand--if you count DC. Counting the may-issue states takes two hands. That process happened one state at a time. In most states, it took place in stages. They did the first part, discovered that it worked and wasn't something to be afraid of, and then expanded it. Look. If you've got a pro-gun Democrat running against an anti-gun Republican, by all means, vote for the Democrat! Any Republican stupid enough to get caught to the left of a Democrat on guns deserves to lose. But even then, you may find yourself voting indirectly for an anti-gun leadership that will kill the bill your guy writes. > > This coming year, the Senate MIGHT have enough votes to pass a clean (or > > nearly clean) bill. The House WILL have enough votes to go along and > the > > President WILL sign it. . > > I bet they do nothing again, and spend alot of money doing it. Want > to place a wager? Nah. But it's a sure bet that without the extra seats in the Senate they wouldn't bother. Besides, there are a few Dems who might just want to get a monkey off their back in time for 2006. Could get interesting! > > There are very few states or Congressional > > Districts where voting for a Democrat would have made that outcome more > > likely and there is no chance that voting for a Democrat for President > would > > get this bill anything but vetoed. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
