On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 01:35:22 -0800, Lowell C. Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl wrote, in part: > > > And did Bush get reelected? > > > > No. Is that important? I thought we were talking about whether > > republicans sign gun control laws into law, not whether they get > > re-elected. > > Yes. That was 15 years ago and there are different Republicans in office, > now.
Different names, but do you really think they are better at gun control? I think time more than their gun conrtol stance is what changed the names. > > > > > Do you think a few Republicans learned something from it? > > > > yeah a few. But obviously not Robert, who voted for his son this last > > month who favored the assualt weapons ban and gives his support to > > many candidates who are in favor of gun control.. > > > > > > > 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? > > > > No. And that is no thanks to GW Bush. > > I wouldn't be too certain of that. So we should not trust what GW Bush says? > > > 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. > > > > I am not nitpicking. GW Bush is no where near my position on guns, > > spending, drug laws, taxation, foriegn policy. it is not nit picking, > > it is basic common sense. I am for limited government GW Bush and the > > republican congress continually vote for MORE government. > > Given his record for 4 years, I'll bet that if Congress passed a repeal of > the 1986 law and allowed new machine guns to be registered, he'd sign it. > In fact, if Congress repealed the NFA, removing the tax on machine guns, > he'd probably sign it. His record shows me two things... He increases government, and he lies. So I would not count on anything. > > > Bush > > > said during the campaign that he'd sign the bill if it got to his desk. > > > > In other words he is in favor of gun control. Am I picking nits? No. > > He is straight up telling us that he is in favor of gun control that > > even the majority of his party is opposed to. > > He's in favor of *some* gun control. He also signed a Concealed Carry Law > in Texas and signed at least one improvement of it. He is in favor of most all gun control we have on the books and even some we let sunset away. > > > 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! > > > > Yeah, crazy me, I am not willing to support a man that comes out in > > favor of something I find very important. What would Bush have to do > > to make you stop supporting him? Obviosuly saying things that you are > > opposed to (such as his stance on the AW ban) is not enough. > > Obviously his actions (such as his giant increases in spending the > > past 4 years) is not enough. Seriously what would the man have to do > > for you to oppose him? Kill your immediate family? Or would you come > > up with a defense for that as well? > > Yeah, crazy you. You aren't willing to support a guy who has said that the > two justices most likely to vote to overturn a federal firearms law are his > model for supreme court justices. You aren't willing to support a guy who > is willing to give you some of the things you want because he said he'd sign > a law you disliked. Especially when you can work the separation of powers > to beat that one thing. Silly me, I am taking him for his word when he says he supports laws that violate the 2nd amendment. Why would you lie about something like that? Normally when you lie, you try to make yourself look better not worse. > > > > 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? > > > > OK, I will give you the armed pilots thing. the concealed weapons for > > cops is BS. We should not treat our citizens different from our > > police force. As for TRYING to pass things, that is exactly my > > point... Republicans even when they are in the majority can not get > > things passed because so many are in favor of gun control. > > I partially agree with you on the cops thing. However, it's that > incrementalism thing again. Incrementanlism is okay when you are incrementally going torwards your goal. Allowing police officers to be arrmed while citizens still are not is not a step in the right direction. I useful exercise is to replace the 2nd amendment with the 1st. If there were restrcition on what you could publish would a good step be allowing certain approved government officials to publish whatever they want? > And as for your objection regarding "TRYING," I'm sorry, but a 51-49 (or > 51-48-1) majority in the Senate is hardly enough of a majority to do > ANYTHING without significant help from the opposition. Excuses. What will they be when the fail to do anything this session? > I do not know. Do you have a source for this? Maybe in examing them > > I might see why. > > You can look at "www.gunowners.org/votetb04.htm" but that's just the > congressional candidates. I was looking at the state races. Also, I was > guestimating and may have over guestimated--but not by a whole lot. I've > enclosed the Washington ratings as an attachment. I looked at them. Of the L's that responded I saw one candidate that had alot of No's. Exclude the one oddball and you are left with every other answer as a Yes except one no and one no response. That is near perfect (excluding the one oddball, which I am not excusing, but it is far better than the 25% that the Republicans have historically been at. As for the no responses all the way across, that is not just a problem with libertarians, but R's and D's as well. My guess is these for all parties were sent to the wrong address, lost in the mail, not deemed important, or countless other things, I seriously doubt it is an attempt to hide their antigun stance. Surveys always have a number of no responses. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
