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

[Timothy Butler]

>>
>>> 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.

	True. Just a passing comment. Gun control really doesn't work in this  
area. :-)
>
>
>> 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


	I remain confused. That seems to be a law to restrict *gun control*  
rather than guns.

>
>>
>>> 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.

	Well, he could speak out against it, but as you know, the vice  
president doesn't vote in the senate except in the case of the tie, so  
he essentially has no more power than you or I do in most cases.
>>>
>>
>> 	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."

	Right. The senate, but not the house. See what I said next:

>> 	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/

	Yes, that was my point. My off the top of my head guess was two  
senators off. Six GOP senators voted for it. By and large, that means  
that the GOP was against gun control, because the senate, it is said,  
is like herding cats... you can't get them all to vote one way or  
another along party lines on just about anything.
>
> Now let us not turn this into a debate on the fact that this came  
> from CNN..
> LOL

	Nah. I've always been fond of CNN, though I got disgusted with them  
when they went all pro-Obama and anti-Clinton. (I was rooting for  
Clinton, I'll admit 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.

	The proof will be in the pudding. Who actually gets the bill passed?  
It probably won't be Republicans.

	Here's a case in point. Sen. McCain often sponsors Democratic favored  
bills, such as Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The fact that he  
sponsors it doesn't mean that Republicans generally support Democratic  
favored bills.

	More important than the question of whether some Republicans support  
gun control, as I said, is which party actually sponsors it as part of  
the party's platform? Which one has its rank and file supporting gun  
control? If one party had 10 or even 20% of its members supporting gun  
control and another party has 60 or 80% supporting it...
>
> 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.

	Nice. :-) History is a good thing!

	-Tim


---
Timothy R. Butler | "Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in.
Editor, OfB.biz   |  Aim at earth and you get neither."
tbutler at ofb.biz   |                                   -- C.S. Lewis
timothybutler.us  |