Post by: nico on December 16, 2007, 01:37:45 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/4/
Quote
et me turn to gun control. Here's the headline: "Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his '94" Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other" guns rights "groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. `That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA,' Romney told the Boston Herald.'" "At another campaign stop" "he told reporters, `I don't line up with the NRA.'" Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.
GOV. ROMNEY: You know, it's, it's wonderful, and you'll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I've had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I...
MR. RUSSERT: You're still for the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I...
MR. RUSSERT: You're for it?
GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned--and I--let me, let me describe it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you're still for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: Let's describe what it is. I signed--I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that's something I would consider signing. There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality...
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn't act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms...
MR. RUSSERT: How about the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time.
MR. RUSSERT: But the idea of a waiting period.
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That's the key thing. I support background checks to, to--for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure...
MR. RUSSERT: But you stand by your support of the Brady Bill.
GOV. ROMNEY: ...to make sure, to make sure that the, that the crazies don't buy guns.
The, the current Brady Bill is, is a different measure than the original. The original had a waiting period because it took a long time to check on people's backgrounds. Today we can check instantly on backgrounds. I don't want to cause a waiting period that's not necessary based upon today's technology. But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don't.
GOV. ROMNEY: You know, it's, it's wonderful, and you'll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I've had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I...
MR. RUSSERT: You're still for the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I...
MR. RUSSERT: You're for it?
GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned--and I--let me, let me describe it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you're still for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: Let's describe what it is. I signed--I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that's something I would consider signing. There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality...
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn't act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms...
MR. RUSSERT: How about the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time.
MR. RUSSERT: But the idea of a waiting period.
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That's the key thing. I support background checks to, to--for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure...
MR. RUSSERT: But you stand by your support of the Brady Bill.
GOV. ROMNEY: ...to make sure, to make sure that the, that the crazies don't buy guns.
The, the current Brady Bill is, is a different measure than the original. The original had a waiting period because it took a long time to check on people's backgrounds. Today we can check instantly on backgrounds. I don't want to cause a waiting period that's not necessary based upon today's technology. But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don't.
this man will not get my vote. . . ever.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 16, 2007, 01:40:16 PM
Romney and Giuliani aren't Republicans anyplace but the northeast.
Post by: Ben on December 16, 2007, 01:45:20 PM
Post by: nico on December 16, 2007, 01:49:10 PM
fwiw, at least Bush played the "I'd sign it if it came to my desk" game to placate the dems when he knew it wasn't getting to his desk
edit: this is also an example of why I wish (at least in principle) that the NRA would say "both candidates suck" once in a while instead of picking the lesser of two evils.
Post by: roo_ster on December 16, 2007, 05:02:20 PM
I'm getting close to taking my ballot and wiping my *expletive deleted*ss with it.
* And on issues Y, Z, A, B, C...
Post by: Manedwolf on December 16, 2007, 05:06:51 PM
Quote
But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality...
And what, praytell, would that be? A 45-70 Government out of a lever-action would probably be one of the most lethal of all, the terms "splatter" and "explosive splintering of bone" would apply. Especially as compared to a .223 at the same range.
Quote
GOV. ROMNEY: ...to make sure, to make sure that the, that the crazies don't buy guns.
Silly peasant. Guns are for the elite. The rabble would rise in a murderous rage if they were allowed to touch them.
That's how he thinks. Piece of lying elitist ___.
I'm tempted to make that line into the refrain of a remix, and do a progessive-house music video using video of gun confiscations in NO, all that sort of thing.
Post by: Paddy on December 16, 2007, 05:08:59 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 16, 2007, 05:46:16 PM
Yeah. Go ahead. Keep voting Republican, ye suckers.
Hrrmph. You're voting for Ron Paul. Talk about being a sucker...
Post by: Paddy on December 16, 2007, 05:48:26 PM
Yeah. Go ahead. Keep voting Republican, ye suckers.
Hrrmph. You're voting for Ron Paul. Talk about being a sucker...Ron Paul will never sign a bill limiting or reducing our RKBA. GUARANTEED. Say that about any Republican candidate.
Hrrmph indeed.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 16, 2007, 06:02:34 PM
Yeah. Go ahead. Keep voting Republican, ye suckers.
Hrrmph. You're voting for Ron Paul. Talk about being a sucker...Ron Paul will never sign a bill limiting or reducing our RKBA. GUARANTEED. Say that about any Republican candidate.
Hrrmph indeed.
Well, duh. You can't sign a bill if you can't ever get elected!
Post by: Paddy on December 16, 2007, 06:18:17 PM
Quote
Well, duh. You can't sign a bill if you can't ever get elected!
EXACTLY! Yet the Republican candidate who YOU vote for (if elected, and that's doubtful) will inevitably infringe on your RKBA. So you're willing to vote to limit your gun rights.
Like I said, ye suckers
ifyoualwaysdowhatyoualwaysdidyoualwaysgetwhatyoualwaysgot.
Go ahead. Vote Republican.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 16, 2007, 06:34:47 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 16, 2007, 06:35:49 PM
Let's see, there are only two parties...
...and it wasn't the Democrats...
...'cause they were eager to renew it...
...so it must have been that other party...
...no, no, it wasn't the Libertarian Party...
...cause you have to get elected before you can influence policy...
...what's the name of that other party again...?
...I can't seem to remember...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 16, 2007, 06:36:35 PM
It was the Republicans who killed the AWB!
Silly me, how could I have forgotten that?
Post by: Paddy on December 16, 2007, 06:44:06 PM
ye suckers!
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 16, 2007, 07:01:48 PM
Hmm, didn't the Supreme Court recently decide to hear a 2nd Amendment case for the first time in a century? Darn, I wish there had a Republican President in office to add some strict-constructionist judges to the Supreme Court before that case. Wouldn't it be nice to have those two strict constructionists so that we could be confident that the court would rule in our favor?
The Republicans have managed to kill some gun control in the past few decades. No all of it, unfortunately, but some.
I bet Riley's party has killed more gun control than the Republican Party. Right Riley?
Post by: Paddy on December 16, 2007, 07:07:50 PM
Dont 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 2, 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, 2, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nations 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 medias 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 papers 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 Americas "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current trend.
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm
Go ahead, vote Republican. (Those stalwart defenders of freedom who will roll over and take it up the ass) Just don't come cryin' about the results.
Post by: Len Budney on December 16, 2007, 07:09:12 PM
Golly, now that I think about it, it was also the Republicans who pushed through the Firearm Owners Protection Act....
It wasn't "republicans" who did it any more than it was "Islam" that did 9/11. It was specific men who happened to belong to the Republican party. Rudy "Huck" McRomney isn't those men, and won't protect your right to keep and bear arms. Voting for them because they belong to the same party as better men is beyond asinine.
When you consider that there IS a better man in the same party right now, it becomes downright insane. But that's beside the point. The point is that supporting gun-grabbers because they have an (R) after their name is... so stupid that I just gave up trying to think of an adequate superlative. What does one do for an encore? Eat poop with a smile if some huckster calls it ice cream?
--Len.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 16, 2007, 07:11:16 PM
It's a pleasant fantasy. When you're ready to return to the real world, let me know.
Post by: Paddy on December 16, 2007, 07:15:24 PM
Quote
It's a pleasant fantasy. When you're ready to return to the real world, let me know.
Translation: "I'm all out of ideas and admit defeat".
You're a classic Republican, HTG.
Post by: nico on December 16, 2007, 07:55:09 PM
...oh, I remember now!
It was the Republicans who killed the AWB!
Silly me, how could I have forgotten that?
It was the Republicans who killed the AWB!
Silly me, how could I have forgotten that?
Calling what the Republicans did "killing" the AWB is being way too generous. They let it die at a time when it didn't have a lot of support anyway.
Killing the AWB would have been if they repealed it in the first 3 years of Bush's presidency.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 17, 2007, 05:02:55 AM
Quote
It's a pleasant fantasy. When you're ready to return to the real world, let me know.
Translation: "I'm all out of ideas and admit defeat".
You're a classic Republican, HTG.
And yes, I am a classic Republican. Nothing wrong with that.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 17, 2007, 05:07:11 AM
...oh, I remember now!
It was the Republicans who killed the AWB!
Silly me, how could I have forgotten that?
It was the Republicans who killed the AWB!
Silly me, how could I have forgotten that?
Calling what the Republicans did "killing" the AWB is being way too generous. They let it die at a time when it didn't have a lot of support anyway.
Killing the AWB would have been if they repealed it in the first 3 years of Bush's presidency.
It was the Republicans who put the sunset provision in the bill in '94. It was the Republicans who squashed the renewal effort in '04. The simple truth is that you'd still be paying $100 for hicap magazines and debating muzzle brake vs flash hider if not for your (my?) Republican Party.
You're welcome.
Post by: Len Budney on December 17, 2007, 05:08:06 AM
And yes, I am a classic Republican. NothingNot that there's anything wrong with that.
Heh.
You seem to have missed my point completely: here you are willingly playing a game of "my gun grabber is better than your gun grabber." At the end of the day, you're supporting a gun grabber. Bravo.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 17, 2007, 05:15:16 AM
And yes, I am a classic Republican. NothingNot that there's anything wrong with that.
Heh.
You seem to have missed my point completely: here you are willingly playing a game of "my gun grabber is better than your gun grabber." At the end of the day, you're supporting a gun grabber. Bravo.
--Len.
His whole point is that were it not for Republicans in both houses and the White House we would still have an AWB. How does that translate into "my gun grabber is better than your gungrabber"??
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 17, 2007, 05:15:31 AM
The modern Republican Party has done more to reduce gun control than any other party in the history of the nation. Perfect? No, of course not. But better than anything else out there. I shudder to think of what our gun laws might be like if Clinton and his Democrat congress had been able to pass any anti-gun bill they wanted back in '94. How many more anti-guin bills might have been passed after the AWB if Republicans hadn't managed to take congress away from them?
Piss and moan all you want. The reality of our country is that you have three choices of political party: Democrat, Republican, or nothing (third party). Democrats pass more gun control whenever they're able to. Republicans manage to reduce the net of gun control in the country ("two steps forward, one step back"). Third p[arty has never managed to accomplish anything, either positive or negative. Of those options, the choice of best RKBA support is a no-brainer.
To borrow from Churchill, the Republican Party is the worst party we have, except for all the others.
Post by: Len Budney on December 17, 2007, 05:22:18 AM
His whole point is that were it not for Republicans in both houses and the White House we would still have an AWB. How does that translate into "my gun grabber is better than your gungrabber"??
You keep discussing the past as if what "republicans" did in 1996 has any bearing on the fact that the leading candidates in 2008 are all gun grabbers. Someone with an (R) did something good in the past. Relevance to the fact that Rudy McRomney are a gun grabber? NONE.
HTG is making the same argument that a Clintonista might have about Lewinsky: "Presidents don't probe interns in the oval office with a cigar. It's never been done. Presidents since George Washington have had too much class to stoop that low." True: before Clinton no President managed to be THAT disgusting. But also irrelevant: Clinton WAS that disgusting.
Lest you miss the parallel, I'll explain it again. Suppose that every Republican since Lincoln till today has been an absolute, 100% second-amendment purist. Just suppose. What would that tell us about whether Giuliani is also a defender of 2A rights? Yes, kids, that's right! NOTHING! Pointing to other republicans' records when we already know for a fact that Giuliani is a gun grabber isn't just bad logic; it's embarrassingly stupid.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on December 17, 2007, 05:36:21 AM
To borrow from Churchill, the Republican Party is the worst party we have, except for all the others.
You just said, "It's a given that our guns are going to be grabbed. So I'd just prefer they be grabbed by a republican."
Aristotle pointed out a foolproof way to spot an invalid argument: if an argument is valid, it remains so after replacing the terms with anything you like. I regularly use this technique to reveal flawed arguments, but people (who probably don't know about Aristotle's clever technique) get bogged down in my choice of terms. Your argument has the form: "It's inevitable that X. Therefore I'd prefer X by Y." The folly of the argument is easily exposed. Some examples:
- It's inevitable that I'm going to be murdered. Therefore, I'd prefer to be murdered by my mother. (The ignorant would respond: that sentence doesn't make any sense.)
- It's inevitable that my wife is going to be raped. Therefore, I'd prefer for her to be raped by my best friend. (The ignorant reply, "Why do you always mention rape?")
- It's inevitable that abortions will be performed. Therefore, I prefer that they be performed by licensed physicians. (The ignorant become distracted and reply, "Wait--I agree with that one!")
Of the infinitely many examples I can make up, I prefer the one using rape, because nobody is idiot enough to say, "... so I'd prefer to be raped by a Republican." This might clue them that their entire argument is bogus. The fact is that (1) it's not inevitable, and (2) submitting to such an infringement is out of the question. If you aren't willing to lay your life, fortune and sacred honor on the line for freedom, then stop puffing out your chest and pretending to be a man.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 17, 2007, 07:58:56 AM
To borrow from Churchill, the Republican Party is the worst party we have, except for all the others.
You just said, "It's a given that our guns are going to be grabbed. So I'd just prefer they be grabbed by a republican."
Do you honestly think the two statements above are equivalent? Because if you do there is no point discussing this further. You are either incapable of reading and understanding the point being made or you are deliberating distorting what is being stated. The third possibility is that you know the difference between what HTG writes and what you write but you are engaging in argument for its own sake to satisfy some basic need you have.
So which is it?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 17, 2007, 08:05:23 AM
His whole point is that were it not for Republicans in both houses and the White House we would still have an AWB. How does that translate into "my gun grabber is better than your gungrabber"??
You keep discussing the past as if what "republicans" did in 1996 has any bearing on the fact that the leading candidates in 2008 are all gun grabbers. Someone with an (R) did something good in the past. Relevance to the fact that Rudy McRomney are a gun grabber? NONE.
HTG is making the same argument that a Clintonista might have about Lewinsky: "Presidents don't probe interns in the oval office with a cigar. It's never been done. Presidents since George Washington have had too much class to stoop that low." True: before Clinton no President managed to be THAT disgusting. But also irrelevant: Clinton WAS that disgusting.
Lest you miss the parallel, I'll explain it again. Suppose that every Republican since Lincoln till today has been an absolute, 100% second-amendment purist. Just suppose. What would that tell us about whether Giuliani is also a defender of 2A rights? Yes, kids, that's right! NOTHING! Pointing to other republicans' records when we already know for a fact that Giuliani is a gun grabber isn't just bad logic; it's embarrassingly stupid.
--Len.
The current Republican Party is the same Republican Party from the '90s and '00s, with the same support base and the same basic ideals. It's the same Republican Party that is running for office again in '08, so to discuss what the Party is likely to do in '08 based on what the Party did in the recent past is entirely reasonable and appropriate.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 17, 2007, 08:05:43 AM
To borrow from Churchill, the Republican Party is the worst party we have, except for all the others.
You just said, "It's a given that our guns are going to be grabbed. So I'd just prefer they be grabbed by a republican."
Aristotle pointed out a foolproof way to spot an invalid argument: if an argument is valid, it remains so after replacing the terms with anything you like. I regularly use this technique to reveal flawed arguments, but people (who probably don't know about Aristotle's clever technique) get bogged down in my choice of terms. Your argument has the form: "It's inevitable that X. Therefore I'd prefer X by Y." The folly of the argument is easily exposed. Some examples:
- It's inevitable that I'm going to be murdered. Therefore, I'd prefer to be murdered by my mother. (The ignorant would respond: that sentence doesn't make any sense.)
- It's inevitable that my wife is going to be raped. Therefore, I'd prefer for her to be raped by my best friend. (The ignorant reply, "Why do you always mention rape?")
- It's inevitable that abortions will be performed. Therefore, I prefer that they be performed by licensed physicians. (The ignorant become distracted and reply, "Wait--I agree with that one!")
Of the infinitely many examples I can make up, I prefer the one using rape, because nobody is idiot enough to say, "... so I'd prefer to be raped by a Republican." This might clue them that their entire argument is bogus. The fact is that (1) it's not inevitable, and (2) submitting to such an infringement is out of the question. If you aren't willing to lay your life, fortune and sacred honor on the line for freedom, then stop puffing out your chest and pretending to be a man.
--Len.
I never said that its a given that our guns are going to be grabbed. Actually, I've argued just the opposite: as long as Republicans control the government, we tend to see a net reduction in gun control. I don't want my guns to be grabbed by anyone. I want the Republican Party to call the shots in Washington precisely because that's the party that won't grab my guns.
Post by: Len Budney on December 17, 2007, 08:24:04 AM
You're trying to put words in my mouth in a vain attempt to refute me.
You haven't denied the basic fact that the leading republican candidates support gun control, yet you continue to support them. That's not a straw man; that's precisely what you're doing in this thread. You can't weasel out of it, I'm afraid.
Quote
(If you're as well-versed in traditional logic as you represent...)
PhD in mathematics, if you're curious. Mentioning my degree in no way constitutes an appeal to authority, BTW. That's why I explain the principles rather than simply asserting things.
Quote
I don't want my guns to be grabbed by anyone. I want the Republican Party to call the shots in Washington precisely because that's the party that won't grab my guns.
That's the part where you're making no sense: the leading republican candidates all support gun control. Since they're on record supporting gun control, your claim that they "won't grab your guns" is ridiculous. I already dealt with that fallacy earlier. You keep saying, "Republicans oppose gun control." That may even be true as a general observation--but Giuliani, Romney et al had explicitly said they support gun control. Why don't you get that? Perhaps "republicans" don't, but the candidate you plan to vote for DOES.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on December 17, 2007, 08:36:06 AM
Quote
Actually, I've argued just the opposite: as long as Republicans control the government, we tend to see a net reduction in gun control.
Well, you're wrong because that's blatantly false. There has been a net increase in gun control legislation under Republicans. To wit:
Consider the following legislation, all of which occurred within the last six years:
? GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N. ( June 4, 1997 )
The House defeated a pro-gun amendment, by a vote of 369-54, to pull the United States out of the anti-gun United Nations. In recent years, the U.N. has been working to establish gun control laws worldwide and is seeking ways to lead member states like the U.S. toward stricter gun control laws.
169 House Republicans voted against the amendment.
? HATCH-CRAIG GUN CONTROL AMENDMENT (May 14, 1999) -
In response to the Lautenberg amendment and its harsh gun control provisions, Senate Republicans presented a less stringent version. The amendment offered by Orrin Hatch (RUT) and Larry Craig (R-ID) passed by a 48-47 vote.
The Republican bill provided several restrictions on gun ownership. It would require background checks for any private sale at a gun show. Additionally, it would assign a U.S. attorney to every district for the purpose of harassing gun owners.
47 of 55 Republican Senators voted FOR this legislation.
? BANNING PRIVATE SALES OF FIREARMS AT GUN SHOWS
This amendment would ban private sales at gun shows unless the buyer first submits to a background registration check. The amendment would also impose numerous restrictions on gun show promoters.
On May 20, 1999 , this amendment passed. Six Republicans sided with the Democrats in favoring this anti-gun legislation, resulting in a 50-50 tie vote and allowing Vice President Al Gore to cast the tie breaking vote.
? BACKGROUND REGISTRATION CHECKS (May 20, 1999)-
Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and James Jeffords (R-VT) introduced more restrictions on gun sales with this amendment. It subjects pawnshop and repair shop transactions to the same registration and background check requirements as purchases from dealers.
The amendment passed 79-21, with 34 of 55 Senate Republicans voting FOR the gun control legislation.
? JUVENILE CRIME BILL (May 20, 1999)
The Senate passed the anti-gun juvenile crime bill by a 73-25 vote. Senate Bill 254 contained several gun control amendments in addition to the various provisions related to punishing juveniles who commit crimes.
31 of 55 Senate Republicans voted FOR the anti-gun bill.
? OMNIBUS REPUBLICAN GUN CONTROL PACKAGE
On June 18, 1999 , the House defeated the Hyde-McCollum Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act by a 280-147 vote. This bill contained many anti-gun provisions, including trigger locks, a young adult gun ban, and lifetime gun ban for certain juveniles.
137 House Republicans voted for the gun control package.
? ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING GUN LAWS AND PROTECTION OF GUN OWNERS
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) offered a resolution that called for more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, tougher penalties for gun-related crimes and protection for the rights of law-abiding gun owners. On May 17, 2000 , the non-binding vote passed 69-30.
52 of 55 Senate Republicans voted FOR more stringent enforcement of existing gun laws.
? NO U.N. GUN CONTROL ( July 18, 2001 )
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) offered another amendment to withdraw the United States from the United Nations. Paul argued that the country should boycott the international gun control organization, which is actively taking guns away from civilians .
164 House Republicans voted against the amendment.
President Bushs promise to extend the assault weapon ban is hardly the first time that alleged pro-gun Republicans have chosen to infringe upon 2nd Amendment freedoms. At least Democrats are honest in their pledge to disarm the populace. The GOP, on the other hand, uses treachery and deception to mislead the citizenry into thinking that they will protect the right to keep and bear arms. Yet, it is clearly evident that they are enemies of liberty as well.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/powers/powers2.html
Bush fully supported extending AWB, until it became clear he wouldn't be re-elected if he did.
When you're wrong, you're wrong, HTG.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 17, 2007, 08:39:42 AM
You're trying to put words in my mouth in a vain attempt to refute me.
You haven't denied the basic fact that the leading republican candidates support gun control, yet you continue to support them. That's not a straw man; that's precisely what you're doing in this thread. You can't weasel out of it, I'm afraid.
Quote
(If you're as well-versed in traditional logic as you represent...)
PhD in mathematics, if you're curious. Mentioning my degree in no way constitutes an appeal to authority, BTW. That's why I explain the principles rather than simply asserting things.
Quote
I don't want my guns to be grabbed by anyone. I want the Republican Party to call the shots in Washington precisely because that's the party that won't grab my guns.
That's the part where you're making no sense: the leading republican candidates all support gun control. Since they're on record supporting gun control, your claim that they "won't grab your guns" is ridiculous. I already dealt with that fallacy earlier. You keep saying, "Republicans oppose gun control." That may even be true as a general observation--but Giuliani, Romney et al had explicitly said they support gun control. Why don't you get that? Perhaps "republicans" don't, but the candidate you plan to vote for DOES.
--Len.
GWB said he'd sign the new AWB, too. And yet, he didn't sign a new AWB. ("Bush lies!!")
I'm beginning to doubt whether you understand the roll political parties play in our government.
Bush was able to say he'd sign the AWB precisely because he knew the Party would make it unnecessary for him to do so. I don't think he ever really wanted to renew it. Saying he wanted to allowed him to gain some votes both for himself and for his Party, thus ensuring that it wouldn't be renewed. When fighting against a policy that has popular support, you make it look like you support the policy publicly, while working privately and discretely to produce your real intentions.
These are the sorts of games politics necessitates. These are the games the winners in politics master. This is how mainstream Republicans managed to reduce gun control. This is why candidates who don't know how to play *ahemRonPaulcaughahem* lose elections and fail to influence policy.
Post by: Len Budney on December 17, 2007, 08:52:18 AM
GWB said he'd sign the new AWB, too. And yet, he didn't sign a new AWB.
Because he wasn't presented with one to sign. So he confesses his opposition to our RKBA, but you give him credit because he didn't actually infringe that right--for lack of opportunity? Wow.
Quote
I'm beginning to doubt whether you understand the roll political parties play in our government.
Here comes the song and dance about how supporting enemies of the 2A is actually the smartest way to defend the 2A.
Quote
Bush was able to say he'd sign the AWB precisely because he knew the Party would make it unnecessary for him to do so. I don't think he ever really wanted to renew it.
So you're saying he bluffed--i.e., lied to the American people--trusting that his bluff would never be called? He really supports the RKBA, but professed to oppose it for political expediency? Wait, are you defending Bush, or damning him? Suddenly I can't quite tell.
Quote
These are the sorts of games politics necessitates.
Believe it or not, I agree with you: politics without lying is like pound cake without butter. But rather than embracing the lies, I would prefer to abolish the entire criminal business. It's positions like yours that guarantee that the soap box won't work, and the ballot box won't work--leaving no recourse, ultimately, except the cartridge box. Or slavery. You've already picked slavery in principle, hastening the day when we will be fully enslaved in practice.
--Len.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 17, 2007, 09:05:36 AM
Quote
Well, duh. You can't sign a bill if you can't ever get elected!
EXACTLY! Yet the Republican candidate who YOU vote for (if elected, and that's doubtful) will inevitably infringe on your RKBA. So you're willing to vote to limit your gun rights.
Like I said, ye suckers
ifyoualwaysdowhatyoualwaysdidyoualwaysgetwhatyoualwaysgot.
Go ahead. Vote Republican.
Amen! People always combat the third party argument with "but they can't get elected".....so....we all hate the status quo, but nobody will step up and vote third party.....
Ron Paul has my vote, too.
Post by: nico on December 17, 2007, 09:27:25 AM
Renewal had the support of a majority of Americans. Most Democrat congressmen wanted to renew it. They would have, if the Republican majority hadn't prevented them.
There's a big difference between thinking something you know nothing about is a good idea (most people are in favor of "tax increases for the rich" as long as they think they're not "rich") and caring enough about the issue for it to affect your vote. If there was widespread support for the AWB it would have become a significant campaign issue. It didn't because there wasn'tQuote
It was the Republicans who put the sunset provision in the bill in '94.
noone's denying that.Quote
It was the Republicans who squashed the renewal effort in '04.
The Republicans? Hmm, I seem to remember writing a few letters and making a few phone calls that year, as I'm sure plenty of other non-Republican gun owners do. The NRA had a little something to do with it too.Quote
The simple truth is that you'd still be paying $100 for hicap magazines and debating muzzle brake vs flash hider if not for your (my?) Republican Party.
Yup, and where would the Republicans be if independents weren't willing to bite their tongues and vote for the lesser of two evils? Quote
You're welcome.
back at ya 
Post by: The Rabbi on December 17, 2007, 10:13:51 AM
To borrow from Churchill, the Republican Party is the worst party we have, except for all the others.
You just said, "It's a given that our guns are going to be grabbed. So I'd just prefer they be grabbed by a republican."
Do you honestly think the two statements above are equivalent? Because if you do there is no point discussing this further. You are either incapable of reading and understanding the point being made or you are deliberating distorting what is being stated. The third possibility is that you know the difference between what HTG writes and what you write but you are engaging in argument for its own sake to satisfy some basic need you have.
So which is it?
I repost this because you continue to distort what HTG has written into almost the opposite of what he clearly means.
Post by: Len Budney on December 17, 2007, 10:17:47 AM
Do you honestly think the two statements above are equivalent?
Not exactly: his statement is meaningless without context. In the context of his posts on this thread, yes: that's exactly what he's saying. He doesn't even try to contest that the candidates he supports all support gun control.
Quote
You are either incapable of reading and understanding the point being made or you are deliberating distorting what is being stated.
Are you on some sort of kamikaze mission to get us both suspended again? If you can't speak civilly, I suggest you don't speak to me at all.
--Len.
Post by: mtnbkr on December 17, 2007, 10:40:33 AM
Chris