democrats for gun ownership

[BrianK]

Cerfur,

Yes, he hasn't pushed any significant anti-gun ownership legislation as president, but if you read his papers, pre-presidential speaches and look at his voting record in both the State and Federal senates, before he was running for president - his political history shows him to by extremely anti-gun. By his own words, he would like to restrict gun ownership - he directed his tax payer paid lawyers to argue that Washington DC had the right to ban firearm ownership, that Second Amendment doesn't apply to the residents of Washington DC because it's not a State, that the second amendment only applies to well regulated militias (National Guard) that requiring owned firearms be kept disassembled within your home was a "reasonable restriction". When Heller vs Washington, DC was announced by the Supreme Court, he said the SJC "got it wrong"

Yeah, never mind what he does, look at what he's said!

 

[Jose]

Mayor Bloomberg: REPUBLICAN
Sarah Brady: REPUBLICAN
Ronald Reagan ( Who voted into law a ban on O/C AND voted for a ban on all full-autos post '86) REPUBLICAN
Mitt ROMNEY (Voted for the Mass. AWB) REPUBLICAN

Do we we really need to go on?

Gun control as a national issue is DEAD. Only a few partisan idiots trying to gain traction with local constituencies even raise this issue in any significant way.

Obama, with a MAJORITY House and Senate vote, didn't dare raise the issue.

but somehow you paranoid nutjobs think that with a majority R- congress and a fillibuster-prone senate think that somehow in a second term he will do what he couldn't do with a majority in booth houses couldn't.

Tell me another paranoid fairy tale.

Gun control is dead as a national issue, however much partisans in the media etc. might wish it wasn't.

I've had in my RECENT classes,

1. Over a dozen teachers and school administration officials.
2. Doctors
3. University professors
4. Police officials. (Not line cops, but decision-makers)

Not ONE has been anti-gun. You are skewed by your shitty state. We have some anti-gun zealots in my state too. They are always shouted down by the sane majority, which in my case is overwhelmingly Democrat.

Making a civil rights issue a partisan political one is a bad idea. This is civil rights, not which party has more seats. Look at your candidates. That will tell you more than party affiliation for the most part.

Of course I have to acknowledge that in Mass, thinking guns are teh EEVUL id pretty much a Democrat Article of Faith.

In the rest of the country, Not So Much.

Sorry folks, Bill is right and most of you can't see it because you are looking through a cloud of ma**h***ness that smothers your state.

That's why I just laugh when the usual suspects fly into hysterics about a flood of new gun control in the wake of a shooting/incident that is reported in the media.

Outside of massivetwoshits, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. What will it take to make you all understand that?

I have no love for democrats politically. But the fact of the matter is that democratic governor Ted Strickland and his democratic AG Marc Dann did more for gun owners in this state than any Republican administration preceeding it.

In fact, over the 8 years that I've lived here, the republican administration of John Kasich is the ONLY one that has advanced the cause of the RKBA. The republicans prior to him in recent history either made half hearted measures or downright opposed or sabotaged legislative attempts to reform Ohio's gun laws.

The worldview of guns and gun control in the overwhelming majority of America is so different than what you guys see that I am not surprised at the lack of perspective that some here have.

 

[JimB]

Dude. The first rule of holes is,"When you find yourself in one, stop digging".


You Sir, are the one that is 'spinning'. Do your research. Before he was elected (or running) EVERYTHING he said or wrote on the subject was anti-gun. You cited the one bill he signed that could possibly be construed as pro-gun, (carry in Nat'l parks) and he only signed it because 90% of the provisions in the bill were power-grabbing things he wanted for the Feds. If you can look me in the eye and tell me he signed it because of the single pro-gun item and not in spite of it, then you are delusional.

Let's look at the rest of his record. Besides F&F, he signed an executive order for the military to destroy all spent brass rather than sell it at auction. These auctions are the source of brass for commercial reloaders like Black Hills. That order alone would've increased the price of ammo across the board. He finally relented because of political pressure from the Senators from Montana (and others). In addition, his minions in the executive branch put the kibosh on the sale of retired M1 Garands from South Korea. These are not imported 'assault weapons'. These are the American guns that won WWII. He decided that they should not be allowed to come back home.

Please do not insult me and everybody here by trying to argue that Obama is 'neutral' or not anti gun. Jesus Dude. Look at his complete career (such as it is) before you bring this weak shit.

+1

 

[wdcollard]

People that walk the middle of the road run the risk of being run over from either direction.

[video=youtube_share;Y3lQSxNdr3c]http://youtu.be/Y3lQSxNdr3c[/video]

IBTL

 

[MilitaryPolice]

Cerfur,

Yes, he hasn't pushed any significant anti-gun ownership legislation as president, but if you read his papers, pre-presidential speaches and look at his voting record in both the State and Federal senates, before he was running for president - his political history shows him to by extremely anti-gun. By his own words, he would like to restrict gun ownership - he directed his tax payer paid lawyers to argue that Washington DC had the right to ban firearm ownership, that Second Amendment doesn't apply to the residents of Washington DC because it's not a State, that the second amendment only applies to well regulated militias (National Guard) that requiring owned firearms be kept disassembled within your home was a "reasonable restriction". When Heller vs Washington, DC was announced by the Supreme Court, he said the SJC "got it wrong"

He hasn't moved on gun ownership rights because he learned from the massive backlash that the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" created, losing the Democratic party their majority in house and Senate for 10 years. He tried to drive up public support for further gun control by directing the ATF to allow US purchased and modified fully automatic weapons to cross into Mexico and fuel violence while he paraded his Secretary of State around the country blaming Mexican drug violence on "lax laws in the US" It failed and backfired. The public never really bought into the notion that Mexican Cartels were getting their firearms from legitimate gun stores in the US or that stricter control in the US would stem the violence in Mexico. Then one of the guns they watched cross the border killed a US agent and the whole thing blew up in his face.

Why didn't the 2004 A.W.B. bury this p.o.s. Romney and push Paul to the front of the *puke* republican ticket? Well unfortunately that didn't happen. So instead he buys a lifetime membership to the NRA and everyone forgets the bill he signed with a huge smile on his face while saying it will keep the people of Massachusetts safe.

 

[MilitaryPolice]

Mayor Bloomberg: REPUBLICAN
Sarah Brady: REPUBLICAN
Ronald Reagan ( Who voted into law a ban on O/C AND voted for a ban on all full-autos post '86) REPUBLICAN
Mitt ROMNEY (Voted for the Mass. AWB) REPUBLICAN

Do we we really need to go on?

Gun control as a national issue is DEAD. Only a few partisan idiots trying to gain traction with local constituencies even raise this issue in any significant way.

Obama, with a MAJORITY House and Senate vote, didn't dare raise the issue.

but somehow you paranoid nutjobs think that with a majority R- congress and a fillibuster-prone senate think that somehow in a second term he will do what he couldn't do with a majority in booth houses couldn't.

Tell me another paranoid fairy tale.

Gun control is dead as a national issue, however much partisans in the media etc. might wish it wasn't.

I've had in my RECENT classes,

1. Over a dozen teachers and school administration officials.
2. Doctors
3. University professors
4. Police officials. (Not line cops, but decision-makers)

Not ONE has been anti-gun. You are skewed by your shitty state. We have some anti-gun zealots in my state too. They are always shouted down by the sane majority, which in my case is overwhelmingly Democrat.

Making a civil rights issue a partisan political one is a bad idea. This is civil rights, not which party has more seats. Look at your candidates. That will tell you more than party affiliation for the most part.

Of course I have to acknowledge that in Mass, thinking guns are teh EEVUL id pretty much a Democrat Article of Faith.

In the rest of the country, Not So Much.

+1

Funny how most guys on here say moonbats hide from rock hard facts, but when presented with evidence like this they say it's "spin".

 

[ShadeWPI]

Why didn't the 2004 A.W.B. bury this p.o.s. Romney and push Paul to the front of the *puke* republican ticket? Well unfortunately that didn't happen. So instead he buys a lifetime membership to the NRA and everyone forgets the bill he signed with a huge smile on his face while saying it will keep the people of Massachusetts safe.

Where did you get THAT from my post? I never said a single word about Romney.

I haven't forgiven Romney for the 2004 MA Assault Weapons Ban, and I didn't vote for him during New Hampshire's hundred million dollar tax payer funded support of political corruption either.

Romney won the Republican Endorsement because he is a moderate, and the independant middle controls the out come of national elections. They had a disproportionate effect on this "primary" voting cycle because many more moderates came out to vote in the Republican endorsement vote than normal. And most independants don't consider Gun Control a "major" issue. In addition, the media didn't make an issue of it on the national front (leaving it to local politics) so many gun owners outside of MA simply aren't aware of the issue.

Ron Paul didn't win the Republican Endorsement because, even among the Republican Party, he's right of center, and the Media was working extremely hard to discredit the Tea Party, and by association, anyone endorsed by them. His positions simply don't garner the support of independants and moderate Democrates needed to win a National Election. He may be the President this country NEEDS, but he wouldn't be the President this country gets.

Nationally, 30% of voters are registered Democrats. 29% are registered republicans and 41% have no registered party affiliation. We know how 59% of the voters will vote, and they virtually cancel each other out. It's the 41% in the middle that truly matter, and about half of them, despite being undeclared vote with a perticular party consistently - reducing the deciding vote to the 20% in the middle.

To further complicate the situation, due to electoral voting and uneven distribution of political affiliations, it's the middle 20% in about a dozen states that matter - and gun control is not a major issue to voters in most of those states.

 

[Cerfur]

The wackyist theng about this thread is in it I have become painted into a corner of I am a liberal democrat that loves obama because that is what you want! That's what you want to yell about I mentioned I was a indipendent that ididnt vote for obama and that there are pro2a democrats and here would be a lobby represening the through pms I have now learned of two more shuch groups I think it awsome and thank you 2 the two members one with a extreamly high post count that sent me the info! Why this has turned into the anti obama sh*t show I don't get....really this post is supposed to be about the fact that there are democrats that support the 2A so incourage them if we get more of them on board especially in the north east we are in much better shape....stop with obama crap its not what this post is about!! I belive the problem is many of you have not read the thread or my first statemnet the name of the thread democrats for gun ownership is the name of a lobby in washington not that I am a gun owning democrat...within for post someone is telling me I am a democrat honestly did you read it at all? At page 13 I don't expect folks to read it all but at least read my orginal post

 

[ChevyGuy91]

The wackyist theng about this thread is in it I have become painted into a corner of I am a liberal democrat that loves obama because that is what you want! That's what you want to yell about I mentioned I was a indipendent that ididnt vote for obama and that there are pro2a democrats and here would be a lobby represening the through pms I have now learned of two more shuch groups I think it awsome and thank you 2 the two members one with a extreamly high post count that sent me the info! Why this has turned into the anti obama sh*t show I don't get....really this post is supposed to be about the fact that there are democrats that support the 2A so incourage them if we get more of them on board especially in the north east we are in much better shape....stop with obama crap its not what this post is about!!

srs question, do your democrat for guns organizations support "reasonable restrictions", or are they actively trying to challenge and repeal the laws that are infringing on our rights?

If not the latter, I would say someone is making off with your money under the guise of being independent or middle of the road or what ever is attractive about these org's. Unless you, yourself are a supporter of "reasonable restrictions" and are OK with that.

 

[atilla]

srs question, do your democrat for guns organizations support "reasonable restrictions", or are they actively trying to challenge and repeal the laws that are infringing on our rights?

If not the latter, I would say someone is making off with your money under the guise of being independent or middle of the road or what ever is attractive about these org's. Unless you, yourself are a supporter of "reasonable restrictions" and are OK with that.

this. please tell us about obama's pro-gun stance and how "reasonable restrictions" make perfect sense.

 

[Gibbs]

People that walk the middle of the road run the risk of being run over from either direction.

Oh, I like that one.

 

[Cerfur]

Democrats for gun ownership in everything I have read on them are not pushing reasonable restrictions any more then the nra the two I have just found I don't know but I will look into it and find out and if you or another member found a reason I shouldn't support them please let me know and I will put my money elsewhere

- - - Updated - - -

Why the hell is obama back into the conversation I am not pro obama get the obma crap out of your head...

 

[atilla]

Democrats for gun ownership in everything I have read on them are not pushing reasonable restrictions any more then the nra the two I have just found I don't know but I will look into it and find out and if you or another member found a reason I shouldn't support them please let me know and I will put my money elsewhere

the NRA is a friend to gun owners in a sense as if you were to have a "friend" over for parties that is more of an acquaintance and who shits in the tank of your toilet before stealing your liquor.

 

[cekim]

Care to actually refute my facts?

Or do you just want to spew crap and hope something eventually sticks?

See my prior post, no argument there, particularly and increasingly since 1968, the Republicrats have been less and less distinguishable from the Democrats, but the issue is not that the Republicans have been gun grabbers and the Democrats have been fighting the good fight for our rights.

The issue is that the Republicans have been regressing to what the Democrat politicians have always been...

The is particularly true on the gun issue, but ever year has become more true on economic issues as well.

This is why I have been working to change the Republican party. It is presently broken. Notably though, most of its brokenness is in that it has adopted the socialist, gun grabbing, class warrior ways the Democrat party has always held as core values.

Your examples are valid and indictments on the present and recent state of the republican party. However, these are examples, like "medicare part D" that show the republicans acting like democrats rather than distinguishing them from the democrat party.

Frankly, I have known many people who vote democrat who's principles, desires and circumstances are in direct conflict with the party's actual policies and actions, but often align with he slogans and catch phrases.

 

[cekim]

Why the hell is obama back into the conversation I am not pro obama get the obma crap out of your head...

Because he is the president the democrats put in office.

He is the president who's appointments the democrats approved.

He is the president who's healthcare plan they passed without reading it.

He is the president who's supreme court appointees helped write that law and then helped decide it was constitutional.

He is the president who's supreme court appointees said they believed in 2A as an individual during confirmation and then said the exact opposite when the case came up before them when they were on the bench.

If you are voting democrat, you are supporting these actions, not the rainbows and unicorns they promised, but what they did.

The same goes for republicans, but this thread is about why we are crapping on democrats WRT gun rights and the answer is pretty much the entire history of the DNC.

 

[drgrant]

I mentioned I was a indipendent that ididnt vote for obama and that there are pro2a democrats and here would be a lobby represening

Why do gun owners need a clearly partisan lobby group for gun rights? Please explain that to us- there are plenty of other existing groups that they could support. (For example, SAF, GOA, etc, or their local grassroots orgs like GOAL, or VCDL, etc. ) .

If I was going to make a wild assed guess, it's because a bunch of a**h***s who favor "reasonable restrictions" want another gun lobby group like "Americans For Gun Safety" which basically was a significantly less obnoxious version of VPC/Brady/Etc. When it came down to nuts and bolts, though, they were still an anti-gun group.

As far as the rest of your post.... please throw some periods and carriage returns in there. I got the gist of what you were saying, but you're like 5 points below Dench now......

-Mike

 

[Cerfur]

Because he is the president the democrats put in office.

He is the president who's appointments the democrats approved.

He is the president who's healthcare plan they passed without reading it.

He is the president who's supreme court appointees helped write that law and then helped decide it was constitutional.

He is the president who's supreme court appointees said they believed in 2A as an individual during confirmation and then said the exact opposite when the case came up before them when they were on the bench.

If you are voting democrat, you are supporting these actions, not the rainbows and unicorns they promised, but what they did.

The same goes for republicans, but this thread is about why we are crapping on democrats WRT gun rights and the answer is pretty much the entire history of the DNC.

So start a anti obama thread this thread was supposed to be about democrats for gun ownership a gun lobby and how we had some democrats who are shooters who support 2a

 

[cekim]

So start a anti obama thread this thread was supposed to be about democrats for gun ownership a gun lobby and how we had some democrats who are shooters who support 2a

You cannot separate the party from its president... Or it's policies... That is what we are trying to explain to you in answer to this thread's question of why are we crapping on the democrats WRT gun rights.

...beacue they are crapping on our rights and have been for a very long time. Even more so at the state and local level where you find the worst violations of our civil rights, you find a democrat controlled legislature...

Also, you we the one trying to defend Obama's gun control record.

 

[Mike S]

OH and we have James Eldridge here in the Marlboro Acton area,

of course he "pro gun" i understand he went and spoke to the Harvard

Sportsman Club members "of course i'm on your side" bullsh&t when

it came time to vote for the Goal bill regarding the right to protect

youself no matter where you are, he was agianst it, concern was

"we would turn into vigialntes" sounds like a crock of Bull, so we're

not very trusting of DEMOCRATS or those who vote that way. I would

advise you to keep them kinda opinions to yourself... we're not listening

JimB

Jim, let's not forget, Eldridge at that time also made it abundantly clear that he is against law abiding citizens owning "assault weapons".

He needs to go.

 

[Tim111]

And I still stand buy the fact that he is not anti gun he is just not progun

If this is what you really believe you are a lost cause and shouldn't be here. This a GUN forum filled with people who take our 2A rights very seriously.

For your reading pleasure:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_obama.html
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/

There are so many examples of Obama's anti-2A record you can google them yourself.

 

[PWM]

I think it has been clearly demonstrated that politicians are favorable to whatever is popular with the public at any given time. The letter next to the name means absolutely nothing. Lets not forget George H. Bush banning import of certain "Assault Weapons" after the Stockton, CA shootings in 1989. Or, Regan signing the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" in 1986, AFTER Rep. Hughes (D) slipped in the full auto ban at the last second. Pro-gun? Not in my book, he should have told them to pound sand. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968... What happened? JFK shot... CLEARLY we needed a national registry and min. age at 21 for handgun ownership. Followed by Gun control act of 1968... EVENTUALLY to Crime Control Act of 1990... ALL OF THESE HAD MEASURABLE REPUBLICAN SUPPORT. COME ON!?! They are ALL blow hards.

RP 2012

 

[cekim]

I think it has been clearly demonstrated that politicians are favorable to whatever is popular with the public at any given time. The letter next to the name means absolutely nothing. Lets not forget George H. Bush banning import of certain "Assault Weapons" after the Stockton, CA shootings in 1989. Or, Regan signing the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" in 1986, AFTER Rep. Hughes (D) slipped in the full auto ban at the last second. Pro-gun? Not in my book, he should have told them to pound sand. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968... What happened? JFK shot... CLEARLY we needed a national registry and min. age at 21 for handgun ownership. Followed by Gun control act of 1968... EVENTUALLY to Crime Control Act of 1990... ALL OF THESE HAD MEASURABLE REPUBLICAN SUPPORT. COME ON!?! They are ALL blow hards.

RP 2012

The letter does matter, R just isn't a guarantee as you and others have pointed out.

The proof in the pudding is look at the antigun states and cities in this nation. NY, CA, MA, NJ, DC, Chicago, Boston, SanFran, and so on...

Where you find permanent majority democrat electorates, you find gun grabbing.

That said, yes, we do need Ron Paul as the Republicrats have learned from the Democrats and cannot be trusted either.

 

[kid_fisto]

I'm in a similar boat. I say, let's just all support 2nd amendment stuff the rest of it we'll figure out with others that are like minded.

Fence make good neighbors, yes?

 

[cekim]

I'm in a similar boat. I say, let's just all support 2nd amendment stuff the rest of it we'll figure out with others that are like minded.

Fence make good neighbors, yes?

They do, but only insofar as people don't jump over them to try to regulate your behavior and steal your money to pay for other people.

 

[HTRN]

They do, but only insofar as people don't jump over them to try to regulate your behavior and steal your money to pay for other people.

They elect people to carry out the thuggery on their behalf. The pure clean hands of the statists can't be blood stained.
I need a fence that keeps the gov out.

 

[PWM]

The letter does matter, R just isn't a guarantee as you and others have pointed out.

Ok, I can agree with that. Best chances of success.

Where you find permanent majority democrat electorates, you find gun, money, rights, FAST FOOD, PROFANITY grabbing.

Fixed it.

That said, yes, we do need Ron Paul as the Republicrats have learned from the Democrats and cannot be trusted either.

100% truth.

 

[EC1]

Problem with most politicians is that they only support some of the constitution and it seems as though the ones with D's after their names support less of it (maybe it's a grade instead of a political party?).

 

[buketduder]

That stupid letter after there names means nothing...they are just 2 Organized Crime Family's...They should remove polictical affiliations from the Ballot and see what happens..

 

[CAESAR]

Here is another one for you. And Obama knows nothing about it right (even when he signs it because he is saint)?
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-end-run-on-gun-control-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

 

[cekim]

That stupid letter after there names means nothing...they are just 2 Organized Crime Family's...They should remove polictical affiliations from the Ballot and see what happens..

There would be long lines, drooling and self mutilation from frustration at the polls if you took away the electrolytes like that...

I like it though... I think I might support a ruling that advertising party there constituted a campaign donation and would mean the polling process was conflicted unless that was removed.