On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:39:52 -0800, Lowell C. Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
sounds like you did not read http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm > > 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. No. I am not ignoring them. I am well aware that not all republicans support every gun control measure. But far too many do and that should not be ignored. And the ones that do not support every gun control measure, generally do support all the ones we have on the books already. > > 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? No. Is that important? I thought we were talking about whether republicans sign gun control laws into law, not whether they get re-elected. > Did he get NRA support? In 1988 yes. Why? Did Bush really trick them? Was his position not clear before? > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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? > > 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. > > > 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!??? I do not know. Do you have a source for this? Maybe in examing them I might see why. > > 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. Great. I am glad. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
