[CS-FSLUG] [PD] Are Democrats to Blame for Gun Control? (was They have started already... HR6257 To Reauthorize the Assault Weapon Ban)

[David McGlone]

On Sunday 09 November 2008 3:24:20 pm Timothy Butler wrote:
> > To me this is not about gun control, this is about placing blame for
> > gun
> > control squarely on the Democrats. In your original post, you said
> > "The
> > Democrats have already started",
>
> 	You and Ed are right that both parties have problems. That said, I
> think you are fighting a losing battle, David. The Democrats' party
> platform supports gun control, the Republican platform does not. So,
> as a starting point, if you don't like gun control, you obviously know
> you disagree with the Democrats on this, because their intentions
> aren't secret.
>
> 	(Disclaimer before I proceed. I have never fired a gun and I don't
> intend to, but I support the 2nd Amendment all the same.)

I support the 2nd Amendment also. The point in case I'm trying to get across 
is that neither party could do no worse when it comes to gun control. I'm not 
referring to anything that Roosevelt or Nixon or any other president did 
outside of the the scope of gun control.
>
> > If you go back in  history to 1934 When Roosevelt was president,  and
> > Democrats had majority, the national firearms act of 1934 was
> > largely enacted
> > to try and help keep firearms out of mobsters hands. Did Roosevelt and
> > congress have bad intentions? I don't think so.
>
> 	Bad intentions really are irrelevant, bad results are what matters.
> You can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals by putting more
> restrictions on guns. Remember: criminals don't obey laws.

That's true, but with all due respect, I don't think this is relevant to the 
point i'm trying to convey.
>
> > Moving on up to 1986, you'll probably will not like this, but Ronald
> > Regan
> > made the public law "Armed Career Criminal Act", which increased
> > penalties for
> > people that fall in the categories stated in the '68 Gun Control act",
>
> 	I'd have to look into it. I'm not familiar with either act, though as
> you describe it, neither was particularly troubling.

It's not troubling at all. Point is, a Republican helped reform and enact some 
of gun control laws as well as Democrats.

> I don't think
> anyone opposes prohibiting criminals from getting legal guns.
>
> > he also
> > enacted "Firearms Owners Protection Act" Which relaxed some of the
> > laws for
> > sales of guns and ammunition,
>
> 	That sounds like the opposite situation of what you are arguing? This
> one is confusing.

Sorry about that I should have attached references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
>
> > Finally he enacted the "Law Enforcement Officers
> > Protection Act" Which banned possession of armor piercing bullets.
> > So, If it
> > were the Democrats who were at it again as you say, then why is gun
> > control
> > getting support and being expanded by the Republicans? And the
> > Majority of the
> > house was Republican with George Herbert Walker Bush residing as the
> > president
> > of the Senate. Did they have bad intentions? I don't think so.
>
> 	Actually the Republicans did not gain a house majority until 1995.
> And, the veep does very little in the senate.

Probably my bad on the Republicans, but point in case, whether the veep does 
little or not, he could do something if he wanted.
>
> > Then in 1998 Republicans stopped an amendment to require trigger
> > locks be sold
> > with every handgun purchase. House Majority: Republicans. Was this a
> > mistake?
> > I think so, but in 1999 still with Republican majority, Al Gore
> > voted to break
> > a tie in the house, in favor to require trigger locks on all newly
> > manufactured guns. Good thing? YES it was!
>
> 	The VP cannot break a tie in the house.

Sure they can. United States Constitution, Section 3 Clause 4.

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate but 
shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

> 	I presume you were referring
> to the senate. Now, given a 54-46 split in 1999,
> your argument doesn't't
> work very well here. That means (most likely without looking up the
> bill) that 4 Republican senators voted with the Democrats. The tie
> breaking vote of the veep brings it to 49 GOP again and 47 Dem for
> (and 4 GOP for).

No, i'm referring to May 20th 1999 51-50 vote with Al Gore's vote being the 
tie breaker.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/20/gun.control/

Excerpt:

"The way for final passage was cleared earlier Thursday by a vote on a gun 
amendment requiring background checks on all gun sales at gun shows and 
pawnshops. Senators split 50-50, allowing Vice President Al Gore to use his 
constitutional power to break the tie in favor of the measure sponsored by 
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey)."

Now let us not turn this into a debate on the fact that this came from CNN.. 
LOL
>
> 	If that was the scenario, or there abouts, for better or worse, it
> confirms that Democrats were the ones pushing gun control.
>
> > Now Here is what your going to hate...
> >
> > The proposed house bill you have brought up.... "Assault Weapons Ban
> > Reauthorization Act of 2008". You already know who the president is,
> > already
> > know the majority, but what you probably didn't pay attention to is
> > that Mark
> > Kirk is the sponsor of this bill and he has 4 co-sponsors:  Michael
> > N. Castle,
> > Mike Ferguson, lleana Ros-Lehtinen, and Christopher Shays. All 5 of
> > these
> > Rep's are Republican! Bad intentions? I don't think so.
>
> 	Obviously neither party's congresspeople are totally homogenous. That
> said, you can bet the majority of Republicans will likely vote against
> this bill (unless something really important gets attached to it) and
> the majority of Democrats will support it.

It doesnt matter what get's attached to it, case in point, Republicans started 
and sponsored this bill, yet the democrats are being blamed. 
>
> 	Do you support gun control, it sounds like? Then you should be happy
> that the Dems support it, right? :-)

I don't advocate gun control at all. I don't own one, and never fired one 
either, but my very point of my argument is to point out that we cannot place 
blame on either republicans or democrats.

On a side note. LOL I've got the constitution and the pages of the declaration 
of independence hanging on my living room wall. I love history, especially 
American History and when it comes to history, I'm like you and Theology.
-- 
David M.